the life of stephen a. douglas-第11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！


e　considerations　for　the　perpetual　exclusion　of　slavery　in　the　Territories　north　of　36　degrees　and　30　minutes　were　the　admission　of　Missouri　with　slavery；　the　permission　of　slavery　in　the　Territories　south　of　36　degrees　and　30　minutes；　and　the　admission　of　new　States　south　of　that　line　with　slavery　if　their　constitution　should　so　provide。　　The　North　had　honorably　performed　its　contract　by　the　admission　of　Missouri　and　prompt　consent　to　the　admission　of　all　other　slave　States　that　had　sought　it。　　The　South　had　yielded　nothing　to　the　North　under　the　contract；　except　the　admission　of　Iowa　and　the　organization　of　Minnesota。　　The　slave　States；　having　received　all　the　contemplated　benefits　under　the　contract　and　yielded　none；　proposed　to　declare　it　ended　without　the　consent　of　the　free　States。　　He　closed　with　an　appeal　to　the　honor　of　the　South；　earnestly　imploring　the　Senators　to　reject　the　bill　as　a　violation　of　the　plighted　faith　and　solemn　compact　which　their　fathers　had　made　and　which　they　were　bound　by　every　sacred　obligation　faithfully　to　maintain。

Seward；　speaking　on　the　17th　cautioned　them　that　the　repeal　of　the　Compromise　would　be　the　destruction　of　the　equilibrium　between　the　North　and　the　South　so　long　maintained；　the　loss　of　which　would　be　the　wreck　of　the　Union。　　He　warned　the　North　that　if　this　territory　was　surrendered　to　slavery　the　South　would　be　vested　with　permanent　control　of　the　Government；　for　every　branch　of　it　would　be　securely　within　its　power。　　Already　it　had　absolute　sway。　　One　slave…holder　in　a　new　Territory；　with　access　to　the　Executive　ear　at　Washington；　exercised　more　political　influence　than　five　hundred　free　men。　The　recital　of　an　old　repeal　was　made　for　the　demagogic　purpose　of　confusing　the　people；　but　was　false　in　fact　and　false　in　law。　The　Missouri　Compromise　was　a　purely　local　act。　　That　of　1850　was　likewise　local。　　They　affected　entirely　different　localities。　　Hence　the　later　law　could　not　by　implication　repeal　the　former。　　It　was　an　ingenious　device　to　attain　the　desired　end　by　declaring　that　done　by　a　former　Congress　which　no　one　then　thought　of　doing；　and　which　the　present　Congress　dared　not　boldly　do。　　The　doctrine　of　popular　sovereignty　meant　that　the　Federal　Government　should　abandon　its　constitutional　duty　and　abdicate　its　power　over　he　Territory　in　favor　of　the　first　band　of　squatters　who　settled　within　it。　　It　meant　that　the　interested　cupidity　of　the　first　chance　settlers　was　more　fit　to　guide　the　destinies　of　the　infant　Territory　than　the　collective　wisdom　of　the　American　people。

Sumner；　speaking　a　week　later；　declared　that　they　were　about　to　determine　forever　the　character　of　a　new　empire。　　An　effort　was　made　on　false　assumptions　of　fact；　in　violation　of　solemn　covenants　and　the　principles　of　the　fathers；　to　open　this　immense　region　to　slavery。　　The　measures　of　1850　could　not　by　any　effort　of　interpretation；　by　any　wand　of　power；　by　an　perverse　alchemy；　be　transmuted　into　a　repeal　of　that　prohibition　of　slavery。　　The　pending　proposition　was　to　abolish　freedom。　　When　the　conscience　of　mankind　was　at　last　aroused；　they　were　about　to　open　a　new　market　to　the　traffickers　in　flesh　who　haunted　the　shambles　of　the　South。　　They　had　as　much　right　to　repudiate　the　purchase　of　Louisiana　as　this　compact。　Despite　the　temporary　success　of　their　political　maneuvers；　let　them　not　forget　that　the　permanent　and　irresistible　forces　were　all　arrayed　against　them。　　The　plough；　the　steam　engine；　the　railroad；　the　telegraph；　the　book；　were　all　waging　war　on　slavery。　　Its　opponents　could　bide　the　storm　of　vituperation　and　calmly　await　the　judgment　of　the　future。

There　was　at　no　time　the　slightest　doubt　that　the　bill　would　pass；　and　the　arguments　against　it　were　in　the　nature　of　protests　against　a　wrong　that　could　not　be　averted　and　appeals　to　the　future　to　redress　it。

From　the　beginning　it　had　a　well　organized　majority。　　But；　assailed　by　the　invectives　of　Chase；　Seward　and　Sumner；　it　could　not　stand　before　the　world　undefended。　　There　was　but　one　man　enlisted　in　its　support　at　all　fit　to　measure　swords　with　any　of　these　great　leaders；　but　he　was　undoubtedly　more　than　a　match　for　them　all。

At　midnight　on　March　3rd　Douglas　rose　to　close　the　debate。　　The　great　arguments　were　delivered；　a　safe　majority　was　assured。　　While　numerous　Senators　still　wanted　to　be　heard　in　support　of　the　bill；　all　conceded　his　right　to　close　and　yielded　him　the　floor。　　The　scenes　of　that　wild　night；　while　he　charged　upon　his　foes　and　stood　for　hours　at　bay　like　a　gladiator；　repelling　their　savage　assaults；　are　among　the　most　memorable　in　our　congressional　history。

He　laughed　at　the　charge　that　his　bill　had　reopened　the　slavery　question　against　the　will　of　both　political　parties；　as　expressed　in　their　platforms；　and　had　disturbed　the　country　at　a　time　of　profound　tranquility。　　These　men；　he　declared；　who　where　singing　paeans　of　praise　over　the　legislation　of　1850；　were　the　same　men　who　had　most　bitterly　opposed　it　and　predicted　dire　results　from　it；　just　as　they　were　prophesying　evil　from　the　pending　measure　which　simply　carried　to　its　legitimate　conclusion　the　beneficent　principle　of　the　former　law。　　The　substance　of　all　the　opposition　speeches　was　contained　in　their　manifesto　published　in　January。　Chase　in　his　speech　had　exhausted　the　entire　argument。　　The　others　merely　followed　in　his　tracks。

〃You　have　seen　them；〃　he　said；　〃on　their　winding　way；　meandering　the　narrow　and　crooked　path　in　Indian　file；　each　treading　close　upon　the　heels　of　the　other；　and　neither　venturing　to　take　a　step　to　the　right　or　left　or　to　occupy　one　inch　of　ground　which　did　not　bear　the　footprint　of　the　Abolition　champion。〃

The　repeal　of　the　Compromise　was　a　mere　incident　of　the　bill。　　He　quoted　his　speeches　in　1850　to　show　that　he　then　defended　the　popular　sovereignty　principle；　also　resolutions　of　the　Illinois　legislature　approving　it。　　The　Committee　assumed　in　reporting　the　original　bill　that　the　law　of　1850　had　repealed　the　Missouri　Compromise　and　hence　did　not　mention　it。　　Finding　a　diversity　of　opinion　and　desiring　to　clear　the　ground　for　the　unobstructed　operation　of　the　principles　of　1850　in　all　the　Territories；　they　had　expressly　recited　the　repeal。　　Did　not　the　bill　as　originally　reported　repeal　the　Missouri　Compromise　as　effectually　as　the　amended　bill　did？　　If　so；　why　this　clamor　about　the　amendment？　　They　denounced　the　original　bill　in　their　manifesto　as　a　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　If　they　told　the　truth　in　their　manifesto　their　speeches　denouncing　the　amendment　were　false。　　If　their　speeches　were　true　their　manifesto　was　false。　　The　Missouri　Compromise　was　not　a　compact　at　all。　　It　was　simply　a　piece　of　ordinary　legislation；　passed　like　other　bills；　by　means　of　compromise　and　concession。　The　statement　that　the　North　had　faithfully　performed　all　the　terms　of　he　alleged　contract　and；　hence；　the　South　was　estopped　from　repudiating　it；　was　not　supported　by　the　evidence。　　The　North　had　broken　it　immediately　by　resisting　the　admission　of　Missouri　with　slavery。　　A　resolution　of　the　New　York　legislature　had　been　passed　a　few　months　after　the　Compromise　instructing　their　Senators　and　Representatives　to　oppose　the　admission　of　Missouri　or　any　other　State　unless　its　Constitution　prohibited　slavery。　　Objection　being　made　to　the　slavery　clause　of　the　Constitution；　Missouri　had　not　been　admitted　until　1821。　　The　North　having　broken　its　alleged　contract；　had　relieved　the　South　from　all　obligation　under　it；　if　such　obligation　ever　existed。　　All　this　moral　indignation　had　been　stirred　up　over　the　repeal　of　an　ordinary　law。　　By　their　manifesto　and　speeches　the　anti…slavery　Senators　had　roused　the　people　to　rage　in　their　States。　　The　citizens　of　Ohio　had　burned　him　in　effigy。　He　could　be　found　hanging　by　the　neck　in　all　the　towns　in　which　they　had　influence。

Chase　protested　his　sorrow　that　the　people　of　Ohio　had　offered　this　insult。　　Douglas　angrily　reminded　him　of　the　vituperative　epithets　contained　in　the　manifesto；　which　evidently　wounded　him　more　deeply　than　the　coarser　indignities。　　He　drew　Seward　and　Chase　into　debate　on　the　literal　correctness　of　details　of　their　arguments；　as　to　which　he　had　the　better　of　them；　having　fortifie