the writings-2-第39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！



occasionally；　now　and　then；　in　the　indefinite　westward　extension

of　the　line。　　This　demonstrates　the　absurdity　of　attempting　to

deduce　a　prospective　principle　from　the　Missouri　Compromise　line。



When　we　voted　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso　we　were　voting　to　keep

slavery　out　of　the　whole　Mexican　acquisition；　and　little　did　we

think　we　were　thereby　voting　to　let　it　into　Nebraska　lying

several　hundred　miles　distant。　　When　we　voted　against　extending

the　Missouri　line；　little　did　we　think　we　were　voting　to　destroy

the　old　line；　then　of　near　thirty　years'　standing。



To　argue　that　we　thus　repudiated　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　no

less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　argue　that　because　we　have　so　far

forborne　to　acquire　Cuba；　we　have　thereby；　in　principle；

repudiated　our　former　acquisitions　and　determined　to　throw　them

out　of　the　Union。　　No　less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　say　that

because　I　may　have　refused　to　build　an　addition　to　my　house；　I

thereby　have　decided　to　destroy　the　existing　house！　And　if　I

catch　you　setting　fire　to　my　house；　you　will　turn　upon　me　and　say

I　instructed　you　to　do　it！



The　most　conclusive　argument；　however；　that　while　for　the　Wilmot

Proviso；　and　while　voting　against　the　extension　of　the　Missouri

line；　we　never　thought　of　disturbing　the　original　Missouri

Compromise；　is　found　in　the　fact　that　there　was　then；　and　still

is；　an　unorganized　tract　of　fine　country；　nearly　as　large　as　the

State　of　Missouri；　lying　immediately　west　of　Arkansas　and　south

of　the　Missouri　Compromise　line；　and　that　we　never　attempted　to

prohibit　slavery　as　to　it。　　I　wish　particular　attention　to　this。

It　adjoins　the　original　Missouri　Compromise　line　by　its　northern

boundary；　and　consequently　is　part　of　the　country　into　which　by

implication　slavery　was　permitted　to　go　by　that　compromise。

There　it　has　lain　open　ever　s；　and　there　it　still　lies；　and　yet

no　effort　has　been　made　at　any　time　to　wrest　it　from　the　South。

In　all　our　struggles　to　prohibit　slavery　within　our　Mexican

acquisitions；　we　never　so　much　as　lifted　a　finger　to　prohibit　it

as　to　this　tract。　　Is　not　this　entirely　conclusive　that　at　all

times　we　have　held　the　Missouri　Compromise　as　a　sacred　thing；

even　when　against　ourselves　as　well　as　when　for　us？



Senator　Douglas　sometimes　says　the　Missouri　line　itself　was　in

principle　only　an　extension　of　the　line　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87

that　is　to　say；　an　extension　of　the　Ohio　River。　　I　think　this　is

weak　enough　on　its　face。　　I　will　remark；　however；　that；　as　a

glance　at　the　map　will　show；　the　Missouri　line　is　a　long　way

farther　south　than　the　Ohio；　and　that　if　our　Senator　in　proposing

his　extension　had　stuck　to　the　principle　of　jogging　southward；

perhaps　it　might　not　have　been　voted　down　so　readily。



But　next　it　is　said　that　the　compromises　of　'50；　and　the

ratification　of　them　by　both　political　parties　in　'52；

established　a　new　principle　which　required　the　repeal　of　the

Missouri　Compromise。　　This　again　I　deny。　　I　deny　it；　and　demand

the　proof。　　I　have　already　stated　fully　what　the　compromises　of

'50　are。　　That　particular　part　of　those　measures　from　which　the

virtual　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　sought　to　be

inferred　（for　it　is　admitted　they　contain　nothing　about　it　in

express　terms）　is　the　provision　in　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws

which　permits　them　when　they　seek　admission　into　the　Union　as

States　to　come　in　with　or　without　slavery；　as　they　shall　then　see

fit。　　Now　I　insist　this　provision　was　made　for　Utah　and　New

Mexico；　and　for　no　other　place　whatever。　　It　had　no　more　direct

reference　to　Nebraska　than　it　had　to　the　territories　of　the　moon。

But；　say　they；　it　had　reference　to　Nebraska　in　principle。　　Let　us

see。　　The　North　consented　to　this　provision；　not　because　they

considered　it　right　in　itself；　but　because　they　were　compensated…

…paid　for　it。



They　at　the　same　time　got　California　into　the　Union　as　a　free

State。　　This　was　far　the　best　part　of　all　they　had　struggled　for

by　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　They　also　got　the　area　of　slavery

somewhat　narrowed　in　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas。

Also　they　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of

Columbia。



For　all　these　desirable　objects　the　North　could　afford　to　yield

something；　and　they　did　yield　to　the　South　the　Utah　and　New

Mexico　provision。　　I　do　not　mean　that　the　whole　North；　or　even　a

majority；　yielded；　when　the　law　passed；　but　enough　yieldedwhen

added　to　the　vote　of　the　South；　to　carry　the　measure。　　Nor　can　it

be　pretended　that　the　principle　of　this　arrangement　requires　us

to　permit　the　same　provision　to　be　applied　to　Nebraska；　without

any　equivalent　at　all。　　Give　us　another　free　State；　press　the

boundary　of　Texas　still　farther　back；　give　us　another　step　toward

the　destruction　of　slavery　in　the　District；　and　you　present　us　a

similar　case。　　But　ask　us　not　to　repeat；　for　nothing；　what　you

paid　for　in　the　first　instance。　　If　you　wish　the　thing　again；　pay

again。　　That　is　the　principle　of　the　compromises　of　'50；　if；

indeed；　they　had　any　principles　beyond　their　specific　termsit

was　the　system　of　equivalents。



Again；　if　Congress；　at　that　time；　intended　that　all　future

Territories　should；　when　admitted　as　States；　come　in　with　or

without　slavery　at　their　own　option；　why　did　it　not　say　so？

With　such　a　universal　provision；　all　know　the　bills　could　not

have　passed。　　Did　they；　thencould　they…establish　a　principle

contrary　to　their　own　intention？　　Still　further；　if　they　intended

to　establish　the　principle　that；　whenever　Congress　had　control；

it　should　be　left　to　the　people　to　do　as　they　thought　fit　with

slavery；　why　did　they　not　authorize　the　people　of　the　District　of

Columbia；　at　their　option；　to　abolish　slavery　within　their

limits？



I　personally　know　that　this　has　not　been　left　undone　because　it

was　unthought　of。　　It　was　frequently　spoken　of　by　members　of

Congress；　and　by　citizens　of　Washington；　six　years　ago；　and　I

heard　no　one　express　a　doubt　that　a　system　of　gradual

emancipation；　with　compensation　to　owners；　would　meet　the

approbation　of　a　large　majority　of　the　white　people　of　the

District。　　But　without　the　action　of　Congress　they　could　say

nothing；　and　Congress　said　〃No。〃　In　the　measures　of　1850；

Congress　had　the　subject　of　slavery　in　the　District　expressly　on

hand。　　If　they　were　then　establishing　the　principle　of　allowing

the　people　to　do　as　they　please　with　slavery；　why　did　they　not

apply　the　principle　to　that　people？



Again　it　is　claimed　that　by　the　resolutions　of　the　Illinois

Legislature；　passed　in　1851；　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise　was　demanded。　　This　I　deny　also。　　Whatever　may　be

worked　out　by　a　criticism　of　the　language　of　those　resolutions；

the　people　have　never　understood　them　as　being　any　more　than　an

indorsement　of　the　compromises　of　1850；　and　a　release　of　our

senators　from　voting　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　The　whole　people

are　living　witnesses　that　this　only　was　their　view。　　Finally；　it

is　asked；　〃If　we　did　not　mean　to　apply　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico

provision　to　all　future　territories；　what　did　we　mean　when　we；　in

1852；　indorsed　the　compromises　of　1850？〃



For　myself　I　can　answer　this　question　most　easily。　　I　meant　not

to　ask　a　repeal　or　modification　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　I

meant　not　to　ask　for　the　abolition　of　slavery　in　the　District　of

Columbia。　　I　meant　not　to　resist　the　admission　of　Utah　and　New

Mexico；　even　should　they　ask　to　come　in　as　slave　States。　　I　meant

nothing　about　additional　Territories；　because；　as　I　understood；

we　then　had　no　Territory　whose　character　as　to　slavery　was　not

already　settled。　　As　to　Nebraska；　I　regarded　its　character　as

being　fixed　by　the　Missouri　Compromise　for　thirty　yearsas

unalterably　fixed　as　that　of　my　own　home　in　Illinois。　　As　to　new

acquisitions；　I　said；　〃Sufficient　unto　the　day　is　the　evil

thereof。〃　When　we　make　new　acquisitions；　we　will；　as　heretofore；

try　to　manage　them　somehow。　　That　is　my　answer；　that　is　what　I

meant　and　sai