the writings-4-第9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！



between　his　party　and　our　party。　　His　he　assumes　to　be　a　national

party；　ours　a　sectional　one。　　He　does　this　in　asking　the　question

whether　this　country　has　any　interest　in　the　maintenance　of　the

Republican　party。　　He　assumes　that　our　party　is　altogether　sectional；

that　the　party　to　which　he　adheres　is　national；　and　the　argument　is；

that　no　party　can　be　a　rightful　partyand　be　based　upon　rightful

principlesunless　it　can　announce　its　principles　everywhere。　　I

presume　that　Judge　Douglas　could　not　go　into　Russia　and　announce　the

doctrine　of　our　national　Democracy；　he　could　not　denounce　the

doctrine　of　kings　and　emperors　and　monarchies　in　Russia；　and　it　may

be　true　of　this　country　that　in　some　places　we　may　not　be　able　to

proclaim　a　doctrine　as　clearly　true　as　the　truth　of　democracy；

because　there　is　a　section　so　directly　opposed　to　it　that　they　will

not　tolerate　us　in　doing　so。　　Is　it　the　true　test　of　the　soundness　of

a　doctrine　that　in　some　places　people　won't　let　you　proclaim　it？　　Is

that　the　way　to　test　the　truth　of　any　doctrine？　　Why；　I　understood

that　at　one　time　the　people　of　Chicago　would　not　let　Judge　Douglas

preach　a　certain　favorite　doctrine　of　his。　　I　commend　to　his

consideration　the　question　whether　he　takes　that　as　a　test　of　the

unsoundness　of　what　he　wanted　to　preach。



There　is　another　thing　to　which　I　wish　to　ask　attention　for　a　little

while　on　this　occasion。　　What　has　always　been　the　evidence　brought

forward　to　prove　that　the　Republican　party　is　a　sectional　party？　　The

main　one　was　that　in　the　Southern　portion　of　the　Union　the　people　did

not　let　the　Republicans　proclaim　their　doctrines　amongst　them。　　That

has　been　the　main　evidence　brought　forward；that　they　had　no

supporters；　or　substantially　none；　in　the　Slave　States。　　The　South

have　not　taken　hold　of　our　principles　as　we　announce　them；　nor　does

Judge　Douglas　now　grapple　with　those　principles。　　We　have　a

Republican　State　Platform；　laid　down　in　Springfield　in　June　last

stating　our　position　all　the　way　through　the　questions　before　the

country。　　We　are　now　far　advanced　in　this　canvass。　　Judge　Douglas　and

I　have　made　perhaps　forty　speeches　apiece；　and　we　have　now　for　the

fifth　time　met　face　to　face　in　debate；　and　up　to　this　day　I　have　not

found　either　Judge　Douglas　or　any　friend　of　his　taking　hold　of　the

Republican　platform；　or　laying　his　finger　upon　anything　in　it　that　is

wrong。　　I　ask　you　all　to　recollect　that。　　Judge　Douglas　turns　away

from　the　platform　of　principles　to　the　fact　that　he　can　find　people

somewhere　who　will　not　allow　us　to　announce　those　principles。　　If　he

had　great　confidence　that　our　principles　were　wrong；　he　would　take

hold　of　them　and　demonstrate　them　to　be　wrong。　　But　he　does　not　do

so。　　The　only　evidence　he　has　of　their　being　wrong　is　in　the　fact

that　there　are　people　who　won't　allow　us　to　preach　them。　　I　ask

again；　is　that　the　way　to　test　the　soundness　of　a　doctrine？



I　ask　his　attention　also　to　the　fact　that　by　the　rule　of　nationality

he　is　himself　fast　becoming　sectional。　　I　ask　his　attention　to　the

fact　that　his　speeches　would　not　go　as　current　now　south　of　the　Ohio

River　as　they　have　formerly　gone　there　　I　ask　his　attention　to　the

fact　that　he　felicitates　himself　to…day　that　all　the　Democrats　of　the

free　States　are　agreeing　with　him；　while　he　omits　to　tell　us　that　the

Democrats　of　any　slave　State　agree　with　him。　　If　he　has　not　thought

of　this；　I　commend　to　his　consideration　the　evidence　in　his　own

declaration；　on　this　day；　of　his　becoming　sectional　too。　　I　see　it

rapidly　approaching。　　Whatever　may　be　the　result　of　this　ephemeral

contest　between　Judge　Douglas　and　myself；　I　see　the　day　rapidly

approaching　when　his　pill　of　sectionalism；　which　he　has　been

thrusting　down　the　throats　of　Republicans　for　years　past；　will　be

crowded　down　his　own　throat。



Now；　in　regard　to　what　Judge　Douglas　said　（in　the　beginning　of　his

speech）　about　the　Compromise　of　1850　containing　the　principles　of　the

Nebraska　Bill；　although　I　have　often　presented　my　views　upon　that

subject；　yet　as　I　have　not　done　so　in　this　canvass；　I　will；　if　you

please；　detain　you　a　little　with　them。　　I　have　always　maintained；　so

far　as　I　was　able；　that　there　was　nothing　of　the　principle　of　the

Nebraska　Bill　in　the　Compromise　of　1850　at　all；nothing　whatever。

Where　can　you　find　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　in　that

Compromise？　　If　anywhere；　in　the　two　pieces　of　the　Compromise

organizing　the　Territories　of　New　Mexico　and　Utah。　　It　was　expressly

provided　in　these　two　acts　that　when　they　came　to　be　admitted　into

the　Union　they　should　be　admitted　with　or　without　slavery；　as　they

should　choose；　by　their　own　constitutions。　　Nothing　was　said　in

either　of　those　acts　as　to　what　was　to　be　done　in　relation　to　slavery

during　the　Territorial　existence　of　those　Territories；　while　Henry

Clay　constantly　made　the　declaration　（Judge　Douglas　recognizing　him

as　a　leader）　that；　in　his　opinion；　the　old　Mexican　laws　would　control

that　question　during　the　Territorial　existence；　and　that　these　old

Mexican　laws　excluded　slavery。　　How　can　that　be　used　as　a　principle

for　declaring　that　during　the　Territorial　existence　as　well　as　at　the

time　of　framing　the　constitution　the　people；　if　you　please；　might

have　slaves　if　they　wanted　them？　　I　am　not　discussing　the　question

whether　it　is　right　or　wrong；　but　how　are　the　New　Mexican　and　Utah

laws　patterns　for　the　Nebraska　Bill？　　I　maintain　that　the

organization　of　Utah　and　New　Mexico　did　not　establish　a　general

principle　at　all。　　It　had　no　feature　of　establishing　a　general

principle。　　The　acts　to　which　I　have　referred　were　a　part　of　a

general　system　of　Compromises。　　They　did　not　lay　down　what　was

proposed　as　a　regular　policy　for　the　Territories；　only　an　agreement

in　this　particular　case　to　do　in　that　way；　because　other　things　were

done　that　were　to　be　a　compensation　for　it。　　They　were　allowed　to

come　in　in　that　shape；　because　in　another　way　it　was　paid　for；

considering　that　as　a　part　of　that　system　of　measures　called　the

Compromise　of　1850；　which　finally　included　half…a…dozen　acts。　　It

included　the　admission　of　California　as　a　free　State；　which　was　kept

out　of　the　Union　for　half　a　year　because　it　had　formed　a　free

constitution。　　It　included　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas；

which　had　been　undefined　before；　which　was　in　itself　a　slavery

question；　for　if　you　pushed　the　line　farther　west；　you　made　Texas

larger；　and　made　more　slave　territory；　while；　if　you　drew　the　line

toward　the　east；　you　narrowed　the　boundary　and　diminished　the　domain

of　slavery；　and　by　so　much　increased　free　territory。　　It　included　the

abolition　of　the　slave　trade　in　the　District　of　Columbia。　　It

included　the　passage　of　a　new　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　All　these　things

were　put　together；　and；　though　passed　in　separate　acts；　were

nevertheless；　in　legislation　（as　the　speeches　at　the　time　will　show）；

made　to　depend　upon　each　other。　　Each　got　votes　with　the

understanding　that　the　other　measures　were　to　pass；　and　by　this

system　of　compromise；　in　that　series　of　measures；　those　two　bills

the　New　Mexico　and　Utah　billswere　passed：　and　I　say　for　that　reason

they　could　not　be　taken　as　models；　framed　upon　their　own　intrinsic

principle；　for　all　future　Territories。　　And　I　have　the　evidence　of

this　in　the　fact　that　Judge　Douglas；　a　year　afterward；　or　more　than　a

year　afterward；　perhaps；　when　he　first　introduced　bills　for　the

purpose　of　framing　new　Territories；　did　not　attempt　to　follow　these

bills　of　New　Mexico　and　Utah；　and　even　when　he　introduced　this

Nebraska　Bill；　I　think　you　will　discover　that　he　did　not　exactly

follow　them。　　But　I　do　not　wish　to　dwell　at　great　length　upon　this

branch　of　the　discussion。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　a　thorough

investigation　will　show　most　plainly　that　the　New　Mexico　and　Utah

bills　were　part　of　a　system　of　compromise；　and　not　designed　as

patterns　for　future　Territorial　legislation；　and　that　this　Nebraska

Bill　did　not　follow　them　as　a