the writings-5-第13部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


power　a　total　absence　of　power；　in　reference　to　the　Territories。　　It

seems　to　be　his　purpose　to　make　the　whole　of　that　decision　to　result

in　a　mere　negative　declaration　of　a　want　of　power　in　Congress　to　do

anything　in　relation　to　this　matter　in　the　Territories。　　I　know　the

opinion　of　the　Judges　states　that　there　is　a　total　absence　of　power；

but　that　is；　unfortunately；　not　all　it　states：　for　the　judges　add

that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly

affirmed　in　the　Constitution。　　It　does　not　stop　at　saying　that　the

right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　recognized　in　the　Constitution；　is

declared　to　exist　somewhere　in　the　Constitution；　but　says　it　is

affirmed　in　the　Constitution。　　Its　language　is　equivalent　to　saying

that　it　is　embodied　and　so　woven　in　that　instrument　that　it　cannot　be

detached　without　breaking　the　Constitution　itself。　　In　a　word；　it　is

part　of　the　Constitution。



Douglas　is　singularly　unfortunate　in　his　effort　to　make　out　that

decision　to　be　altogether　negative；　when　the　express　language　at　the

vital　part　is　that　this　is　distinctly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution。

I　think　myself；　and　I　repeat　it　here；　that　this　decision　does　not

merely　carry　slavery　into　the　Territories；　but　by　its　logical

conclusion　it　carries　it　into　the　States　in　which　we　live。　　One

provision　of　that　Constitution　is；　that　it　shall　be　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；I　do　not　quote　the　language；any　constitution　or　law

of　any　State　to　the　contrary　notwithstanding。　　This　Dred　Scott

decision　says　that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　affirmed　in

that　Constitution　which　is　the　supreme　law　of　the　land；　any　State

constitution　or　law　notwithstanding。　　Then　I　say　that　to　destroy　a

thing　which　is　distinctly　affirmed　and　supported　by　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；　even　by　a　State　constitution　or　law；　is　a　violation　of

that　supreme　law；　and　there　is　no　escape　from　it。　　In　my　judgment

there　is　no　avoiding　that　result；　save　that　the　American　people　shall

see　that　constitutions　are　better　construed　than　our　Constitution　is

construed　in　that　decision。　　They　must　take　care　that　it　is　more

faithfully　and　truly　carried　out　than　it　is　there　expounded。



I　must　hasten　to　a　conclusion。　Near　the　beginning　of　my　remarks　I

said　that　this　insidious　Douglas　popular　sovereignty　is　the　measure

that　now　threatens　the　purpose　of　the　Republican　party　to　prevent

slavery　from　being　nationalized　in　the　United　States。　　I　propose　to

ask　your　attention　for　a　little　while　to　some　propositions　in

affirmance　of　that　statement。　　Take　it　just　as　it　stands；　and　apply

it　as　a　principle；　extend　and　apply　that　principle　elsewhere；　and

consider　where　it　will　lead　you。　　I　now　put　this　proposition；　that

Judge　Douglas's　popular　sovereignty　applied　will　reopen　the　African

slave　trade；　and　I　will　demonstrate　it　by　any　variety　of　ways　in

which　you　can　turn　the　subject　or　look　at　it。



The　Judge　says　that　the　people　of　the　Territories　have　the　right；　by

his　principle；　to　have　slaves；　if　they　want　them。　　Then　I　say　that

the　people　in　Georgia　have　the　right　to　buy　slaves　in　Africa；　if　they

want　them；　and　I　defy　any　man　on　earth　to　show　any　distinction

between　the　two　things；to　show　that　the　one　is　either　more　wicked

or　more　unlawful；　to　show；　on　original　principles；　that　one　is　better

or　worse　than　the　other；　or　to　show；　by　the　Constitution；　that　one

differs　a　whit　from　the　other。　　He　will　tell　me；　doubtless；　that

there　is　no　constitutional　provision　against　people　taking　slaves

into　the　new　Territories；　and　I　tell　him　that　there　is　equally　no

constitutional　provision　against　buying　slaves　in　Africa。　　He　will

tell　you　that　a　people；　in　the　exercise　of　popular　sovereignty；　ought

to　do　as　they　please　about　that　thing；　and　have　slaves　if　they　want

them；　and　I　tell　you　that　the　people　of　Georgia　are　as　much　entitled

to　popular　sovereignty　and　to　buy　slaves　in　Africa；　if　they　want

them；　as　the　people　of　the　Territory　are　to　have　slaves　if　they　want

them。　　I　ask　any　man；　dealing　honestly　with　himself；　to　point　out　a

distinction。



I　have　recently　seen　a　letter　of　Judge　Douglas's　in　which；　without

stating　that　to　be　the　object；　he　doubtless　endeavors　to　make　a

distinction　between　the　two。　　He　says　he　is　unalterably　opposed　to

the　repeal　of　the　laws　against　the　African　slave　trade。　　And　why？　　He

then　seeks　to　give　a　reason　that　would　not　apply　to　his　popular

sovereignty　in　the　Territories。　　What　is　that　reason？　　〃The　abolition

of　the　African　slave　trade　is　a　compromise　of　the　Constitution！〃　　I

deny　it。　　There　is　no　truth　in　the　proposition　that　the　abolition　of

the　African　slave　trade　is　a　compromise　of　the　Constitution。　　No　man

can　put　his　finger　on　anything　in　the　Constitution；　or　on　the　line　of

history；　which　shows　it。　　It　is　a　mere　barren　assertion；　made　simply

for　the　purpose　of　getting　up　a　distinction　between　the　revival　of

the　African　slave　trade　and　his　〃great　principle。〃



At　the　time　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　was　adopted；　it　was

expected　that　the　slave　trade　would　be　abolished。　I　should　assert　and

insist　upon　that；　if　judge　Douglas　denied　it。　　But　I　know　that　it　was

equally　expected　that　slavery　would　be　excluded　from　the　Territories；

and　I　can　show　by　history　that　in　regard　to　these　two　things　public

opinion　was　exactly　alike；　while　in　regard　to　positive　action；　there

was　more　done　in　the　Ordinance　of　'87　to　resist　the　spread　of　slavery

than　was　ever　done　to　abolish　the　foreign　slave　trade。　　Lest　I　be

misunderstood；　I　say　again　that　at　the　time　of　the　formation　of　the

Constitution；　public　expectation　was　that　the　slave　trade　would　be

abolished；　but　no　more　so　than　the　spread　of　slavery　in　the

Territories　should　be　restrained。　　They　stand　alike；　except　that　in

the　Ordinance　of　'87　there　was　a　mark　left　by　public　opinion；　showing

that　it　was　more　committed　against　the　spread　of　slavery　in　the

Territories　than　against　the　foreign　slave　trade。



Compromise！　　What　word　of　compromise　was　there　about　it？　　Why；　the

public　sense　was　then　in　favor　of　the　abolition　of　the　slave　trade；

but　there　was　at　the　time　a　very　great　commercial　interest　involved

in　it；　and　extensive　capital　in　that　branch　of　trade。　　There　were

doubtless　the　incipient　stages　of　improvement　in　the　South　in　the　way

of　farming；　dependent　on　the　slave　trade；　and　they　made　a　proposition

to　Congress　to　abolish　the　trade　after　allowing　it　twenty　years；a

sufficient　time　for　the　capital　and　commerce　engaged　in　it　to　be

transferred　to　other　channel。　　They　made　no　provision　that　it　should

be　abolished　in　twenty　years；　I　do　not　doubt　that　they　expected　it

would　be；　but　they　made　no　bargain　about　it。　　The　public　sentiment

left　no　doubt　in　the　minds　of　any　that　it　would　be　done　away。　　I

repeat；　there　is　nothing　in　the　history　of　those　times　in　favor　of

that　matter　being　a　compromise　of　the　constitution。　　It　was　the

public　expectation　at　the　time；　manifested　in　a　thousand　ways；　that

the　spread　of　slavery　should　also　be　restricted。



Then　I　say；　if　this　principle　is　established；　that　there　is　no　wrong

in　slavery；　and　whoever　wants　it　has　a　right　to　have　it；　is　a　matter

of　dollars　and　cents；　a　sort　of　question　as　to　how　they　shall　deal

with　brutes；　that　between　us　and　the　negro　here　there　is　no　sort　of

question；　but　that　at　the　South　the　question　is　between　the　negro　and

the　crocodile；　that　is　all；　it　is　a　mere　matter　of　policy；　there　is　a

perfect　right；　according　to　interest；　to　do　just　as　you　please；when

this　is　done；　where　this　doctrine　prevails；　the　miners　and　sappers

will　have　formed　public　opinion　for　the　slave　trade。　　They　will　be

ready　for　Jeff。　Davis　and　Stephens　and　other　leaders　of　that　company

to　sound　the　bugle　for　the　revival　of　the　slave　trade；　for　the　second

Dred　Scott　decision；　for　the　flood　of　slavery　to　be　poured　over　the

free　States；　while　we　shall　be　here　tied　down　and　helpless　and　run

over　like　sheep。



It　is　to　be　a　part　and　parcel　of　this　same　idea　to　say　to　men　who

want　to　adhere　to　the　Democratic　party；　who　have　always　belonged　to

that　party；　and　are　only　looking　about　for　some　excuse　to　stick　to

it；　but　nevertheless　hate　slavery；　that　Douglas's　popular　sovereignty

is　as　good　a　way　as　any　to　oppose　slavery。　　They　allow　themselves　to

be　persuaded　easily；　in　accordance　with　their　previous　dispositions；

into　this　belief；　that　it　is　about　as　good　a　way　of　opposing　slavery

as　any；　and　we　can　do　that　without　straining　our　old　party　ties　or

breaking　up　old　political　associations。　　We　can　do　so　without　being

called　negro…worshipers。　　We　can　do　that　without　being　subjected　to

the　jibes　and　sneers　that　are　so　readily　thrown　out　in　place　of

argument　where　no　arguement　can　be　found。　　So　let　us　stick　to　this

popular　sovereignty；this　insidious　popular　sovereignty。



Now　let　me　call　your　attention　to　one　thing　that　has　really　happened；

which　shows　this　gradual　and　steady　debauching　of　public　opinion；

this　course