the writings-4-第24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！



cannot　let　it　remain　part　slave　and　part　free；　as　the　fathers　of　the

government　made　it；　he　asks　a　question　based　upon　an　assumption　which

is　itself　a　falsehood；　and　I　turn　upon　him　and　ask　him　the　question；

when　the　policy　that　the　fathers　of　the　government　had　adopted　in

relation　to　this　element　among　us　was　the　best　policy　in　the　world；

the　only　wise　policy；　the　only　policy　that　we　can　ever　safely

continue　upon　that　will　ever　give　us　peace；　unless　this　dangerous

element　masters　us　all　and　becomes　a　national　institution；I　turn

upon　him　and　ask　him　why　he　could　not　leave　it　alone。　　I　turn　and　ask

him　why　he　was　driven　to　the　necessity　of　introducing　a　new　policy　in

regard　to　it。　　He　has　himself　said　he　introduced　a　new　policy。　　He

said　so　in　his　speech　on　the　22d　of　March　of　the　present　year；　1858。

I　ask　him　why　he　could　not　let　it　remain　where　our　fathers　placed　it。

I　ask；　too；　of　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　why　we　shall　not　again

place　this　institution　upon　the　basis　on　which　the　fathers　left　it。

I　ask　you；　when　he　infers　that　I　am　in　favor　of　setting　the　free　and

slave　States　at　war；　when　the　institution　was　placed　in　that　attitude

by　those　who　made　the　Constitution；　did　they　make　any　war？　　If　we　had

no　war　out　of　it　when　thus　placed；　wherein　is　the　ground　of　belief

that　we　shall　have　war　out　of　it　if　we　return　to　that　policy？　　Have

we　had　any　peace　upon　this　matter　springing　from　any　other　basis？　　I

maintain　that　we　have　not。　　I　have　proposed　nothing　more　than　a

return　to　the　policy　of　the　fathers。



I　confess；　when　I　propose　a　certain　measure　of　policy；　it　is　not

enough　for　me　that　I　do　not　intend　anything　evil　in　the　result；　but

it　is　incumbent　on　me　to　show　that　it　has　not　a　tendency　to　that

result。　　I　have　met　Judge　Douglas　in　that　point　of　view。　　I　have　not

only　made　the　declaration　that　I　do　not　mean　to　produce　a　conflict

between　the　States；　but　I　have　tried　to　show　by　fair　reasoning；　and　I

think　I　have　shown　to　the　minds　of　fair　men；　that　I　propose　nothing

but　what　has　a　most　peaceful　tendency。　　The　quotation　that　I　happened

to　make　in　that　Springfield　Speech；　that　〃a　house　divided　against

itself　cannot　stand；〃　and　which　has　proved　so　offensive　to　the　judge；

was　part　and　parcel　of　the　same　thing。　　He　tries　to　show　that　variety

in　the　democratic　institutions　of　the　different　States　is　necessary

and　indispensable。　　I　do　not　dispute　it。　　I　have　no　controversy　with

Judge　Douglas　about　that。　　I　shall　very　readily　agree　with　him　that

it　would　be　foolish　for　us　to　insist　upon　having　a　cranberry　law　here

in　Illinois；　where　we　have　no　cranberries；　because　they　have　a

cranberry　law　in　Indiana；　where　they　have　cranberries。　　I　should

insist　that　it　would　be　exceedingly　wrong　in　us　to　deny　to　Virginia

the　right　to　enact　oyster　laws；　where　they　have　oysters；　because　we

want　no　such　laws　here。　　I　understand；　I　hope；　quite　as　well　as　Judge

Douglas　or　anybody　else；　that　the　variety　in　the　soil　and　climate　and

face　of　the　country；　and　consequent　variety　in　the　industrial

pursuits　and　productions　of　a　country；　require　systems　of　law

conforming　to　this　variety　in　the　natural　features　of　the　country。　　I

understand　quite　as　well　as　Judge　Douglas　that　if　we　here　raise　a

barrel　of　flour　more　than　we　want；　and　the　Louisianians　raise　a

barrel　of　sugar　more　than　they　want；　it　is　of　mutual　advantage　to

exchange。　　That　produces　commerce；　brings　us　together；　and　makes　us

better　friends。　　We　like　one　another　the　more　for　it。　　And　I

understand　as　well　as　Judge　Douglas；　or　anybody　else；　that　these

mutual　accommodations　are　the　cements　which　bind　together　the

different　parts　of　this　Union；　that　instead　of　being　a　thing　to

〃divide　the　house；〃figuratively　expressing　the　Union；they　tend　to

sustain　it；　they　are　the　props　of　the　house；　tending　always　to　hold

it　up。



But　when　I　have　admitted　all　this；　I　ask　if　there　is　any　parallel

between　these　things　and　this　institution　of　slavery？　　I　do　not　see

that　there　is　any　parallel　at　all　between　them。　　Consider　it。　　When

have　we　had　any　difficulty　or　quarrel　amongst　ourselves　about　the

cranberry　laws　of　Indiana；　or　the　oyster　laws　of　Virginia；　or　the

pine…lumber　laws　of　Maine；　or　the　fact　that　Louisiana　produces　sugar；

and　Illinois　flour？　　When　have　we　had　any　quarrels　over　these　things？

When　have　we　had　perfect　peace　in　regard　to　this　thing　which　I　say　is

an　element　of　discord　in　this　Union？　　We　have　sometimes　had　peace；

but　when　was　it？　　It　was　when　the　institution　of　slavery　remained

quiet　where　it　was。　　We　have　had　difficulty　and　turmoil　whenever　it

has　made　a　struggle　to　spread　itself　where　it　was　not。　　I　ask；　then；

if　experience　does　not　speak　in　thunder…tones　telling　us　that　the

policy　which　has　given　peace　to　the　country　heretofore；　being

returned　to；　gives　the　greatest　promise　of　peace　again。　　You　may　say；

and　Judge　Douglas　has　intimated　the　same　thing；　that　all　this

difficulty　in　regard　to　the　institution　of　slavery　is　the　mere

agitation　of　office…seekers　and　ambitious　Northern　politicians。　　He

thinks　we　want　to　get　〃his　place；〃　I　suppose。　　I　agree　that　there　are

office…seekers　amongst　us。　　The　Bible　says　somewhere　that　we　are

desperately　selfish。　　I　think　we　would　have　discovered　that　fact

without　the　Bible。　　I　do　not　claim　that　I　am　any　less　so　than　the

average　of　men；　but　I　do　claim　that　I　am　not　more　selfish　than　Judge

Douglas。



But　is　it　true　that　all　the　difficulty　and　agitation　we　have　in

regard　to　this　institution　of　slavery　spring　from　office…seeking；

from　the　mere　ambition　of　politicians？　　Is　that　the　truth？　　How　many

times　have　we　had　danger　from　this　question？　　Go　back　to　the　day　of

the　Missouri　Compromise。　　Go　back　to　the　nullification　question；　at

the　bottom　of　which　lay　this　same　slavery　question。　　Go　back　to　the

time　of　the　annexation　of　Texas。　　Go　back　to　the　troubles　that　led　to

the　Compromise　of　1850。　　You　will　find　that　every　time；　with　the

single　exception　of　the　Nullification　question；　they　sprung　from　an

endeavor　to　spread　this　institution。　　There　never　was　a　party　in　the

history　of　this　country；　and　there　probably　never　will　be；　of

sufficient　strength　to　disturb　the　general　peace　of　the　country。

Parties　themselves　may　be　divided　and　quarrel　on　minor　questions；　yet

it　extends　not　beyond　the　parties　themselves。　　But

does　not　this　question　make　a　disturbance　outside　of　political

circles？　　Does　it　not　enter　into　the　churches　and　rend　them　asunder？

What　divided　the　great　Methodist　Church　into　two　parts；　North　and

South？　　What　has　raised　this　constant　disturbance　in　every

Presbyterian　General　Assembly　that　meets？　　What　disturbed　the

Unitarian　Church　in　this　very　city　two　years　ago？　　What　has　jarred

and　shaken　the　great　American　Tract　Society　recently；　not　yet

splitting　it；　but　sure　to　divide　it　in　the　end？　　Is　it　not　this　same

mighty；　deep…seated　power　that　somehow　operates　on　the　minds　of　men；

exciting　and　stirring　them　up　in　every　avenue　of　society；in

politics；　in　religion；　in　literature；　in　morals；　in　all　the　manifold

relations　of　life？　　Is　this　the　work　of　politicians？　　Is　that

irresistible　power；　which　for　fifty　years　has　shaken　the　government

and　agitated　the　people；　to　be　stifled　and　subdued　by　pretending　that

it　is　an　exceedingly　simple　thing；　and　we　ought　not　to　talk　about　it？

If　you　will　get　everybody　else　to　stop　talking　about　it；　I　assure　you

I　will　quit　before　they　have　half　done　so。　　But　where　is　the

philosophy　or　statesmanship　which　assumes　that　you　can　quiet　that

disturbing　element　in　our　society　which　has　disturbed　us　for　more

than　half　a　century；　which　has　been　the　only　serious　danger　that　has

threatened　our　institutions；I　say；　where　is　the　philosophy　or　the

statesmanship　based　on　the　assumption　that　we　are　to　quit　talking

about　it；　and　that　the　public　mind　is　all　at　once　to　cease　being

agitated　by　it？　　Yet　this　is　the　policy　here　in　the　North　that

Douglas　is　advocating；　that　we　are　to　care　nothing　about　it！