the writings-5-第30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！


but　crocodile　or　negro；　if　the　negro　does　not　the　crocodile　must

possess　the　earth；　in　that　case　he　declares　for　the　negro。　　The

meaning　of　the　whole　is　just　this：　As　a　white　man　is　to　a　negro；　so

is　a　negro　to　a　crocodile；　and　as　the　negro　may　rightfully　treat　the

crocodile；　so　may　the　white　man　rightfully　treat　the　negro。　　　This

very　dear　phrase　coined　by　its　author；　and　so　dear　that　he

deliberately　repeats　it　in　many　speeches；　has　a　tendency　to　still

further　brutalize　the　negro；　and　to　bring　public　opinion　to　the　point

of　utter　indifference　whether　men　so　brutalized　are　enslaved　or　not。

When　that　time　shall　come；　if　ever；　I　think　that　policy　to　which　I

refer　may　prevail。　　But　I　hope　the　good　freemen　of　this　country　will

never　allow　it　to　come；　and　until　then　the　policy　can　never　be

maintained。



Now　consider　the　effect　of　this　policy。　　We　in　the　States　are　not　to

care　whether　freedom　or　slavery　gets　the　better；　but　the　people　in

the　Territories　may　care。　　They　are　to　decide；　and　they　may　think

what　they　please；　it　is　a　matter　of　dollars　and　cents！　But　are　not

the　people　of　the　Territories　detailed　from　the　States？　If　this

feeling　of　indifference　this　absence　of　moral　sense　about　the

question　prevails　in　the　States；　will　it　not　be　carried　into　the

Territories？　Will　not　every　man　say；　〃I　don't　care；　it　is　nothing　to

me〃？　If　any　one　comes　that　wants　slavery；　must　they　not　say；　〃I　don't

care　whether　freedom　or　slavery　be　voted　up　or　voted　down〃？　It

results　at　last　in　nationalizing　the　institution　of　slavery。　　Even　if

fairly　carried　out；　that　policy　is　just　as　certain　to　nationalize

slavery　as　the　doctrine　of　Jeff　Davis　himself。　　These　are　only　two

roads　to　the　same　goal；　and　〃popular　sovereignty〃　is　just　as　sure　and

almost　as　short　as　the　other。



What　we　want；　and　all　we　want；　is　to　have　with　us　the　men　who　think

slavery　wrong。　　But　those　who　say　they　hate　slavery；　and　are　opposed

to　it；　but　yet　act　with　the　Democratic　partywhere　are　they？　Let　us

apply　a　few　tests。　　You　say　that　you　think　slavery　is　wrong；　but　you

denounce　all　attempts　to　restrain　it。　　Is　there　anything　else　that

you　think　wrong　that　you　are　not　willing　to　deal　with　as　wrong？　Why

are　you　so　careful；　so　tender；　of　this　one　wrong　and　no　other？　You

will　not　let　us　do　a　single　thing　as　if　it　was　wrong；　there　is　no

place　where　you　will　even　allow　it　to　be　called　wrong！　We　must　not

call　it　wrong　in　the　free　States；　because　it　is　not　there；　and　we

must　not　call　it　wrong　in　the　slave　States；　because　it　is　there；　we

must　not　call　it　wrong　in　politics　because　that　is　bringing　morality

into　politics；　and　we　must　not　call　it　wrong　in　the　pulpit　because

that　is　bringing　politics　into　religion；　we　must　not　bring　it　into

the　Tract　Society　or　the　other　societies；　because　those　are　such

unsuitable　placesand　there　is　no　single　place；　according　to　you；

where　this　wrong　thing　can　properly　be　called　wrong！



Perhaps　you　will　plead　that　if　the　people　of　the　slave　States　should

themselves　set　on　foot　an　effort　for　emancipation；　you　would　wish

them　success；　and　bid　them　God…speed。　　Let　us　test　that：　In　1858　the

emancipation　party　of　Missouri；　with　Frank　Blair　at　their　head；　tried

to　get　up　a　movement　for　that　purpose；　and　having　started　a　party

contested　the　State。　　Blair　was　beaten；　apparently　if　not　truly；　and

when　the　news　came　to　Connecticut；　you；　who　knew　that　Frank　Blair　was

taking　hold　of　this　thing　by　the　right　end；　and　doing　the　only　thing

that　you　say　can　properly　be　done　to　remove　this　wrongdid　you　bow

your　heads　in　sorrow　because　of　that　defeat？　Do　you；　any　of　you；　know

one　single　Democrat　that　showed　sorrow　over　that　result？　Not　one！　On

the　contrary　every　man　threw　up　his　hat；　and　hallooed　at　the　top　of

his　lungs；　〃Hooray　for　Democracy！〃



Now；　gentlemen；　the　Republicans　desire　to　place　this　great　question

of　slavery　on　the　very　basis　on　which　our　fathers　placed　it；　and　no

other。　　It　is　easy　to　demonstrate　that　〃our　fathers；　who　framed　this

Government　under　which　we　live；〃　looked　on　slavery　as　wrong；　and　so

framed　it　and　everything　about　it　as　to　square　with　the　idea　that　it

was　wrong；　so　far　as　the　necessities　arising　from　its　existence

permitted。　　In　forming　the　Constitution　they　found　the　slave　trade

existing；　capital　invested　in　it；　fields　depending　upon　it　for　labor；

and　the　whole　system　resting　upon　the　importation　of　slave　labor。

They　therefore　did　not　prohibit　the　slave　trade　at　once；　but　they

gave　the　power　to　prohibit　it　after　twenty　years。　　Why　was　this？　What

other　foreign　trade　did　they　treat　in　that　way？　Would　they　have　done

this　if　they　had　not　thought　slavery　wrong？



Another　thing　was　done　by　some　of　the　same　men　who　framed　the

Constitution；　and　afterwards　adopted　as　their　own　the　act　by　the

first　Congress　held　under　that　Constitution；　of　which　many　of　the

framers　were　members；　that　prohibited　the　spread　of　slavery　into

Territories。　　Thus　the　same　men；　the　framers　of　the　Constitution；　cut

off　the　supply　and　prohibited　the　spread　of　slavery；　and　both　acts

show　conclusively　that　they　considered　that　the　thing　was　wrong。



If　additional　proof　is　wanted　it　can　be　found　in　the　phraseology　of

the　Constitution。　　When　men　are　framing　a　supreme　law　and　chart　of

government；　to　secure　blessings　and　prosperity　to　untold　generations

yet　to　come；　they　use　language　as　short　and　direct　and　plain　as　can

be　found；　to　express　their　meaning　　In　all　matters　but　this　of

slavery　the　framers　of　the　Constitution　used　the　very　clearest；

shortest；　and　most　direct　language。　　But　the　Constitution　alludes　to

slavery　three　times　without　mentioning　it　once　　The　language　used

becomes　ambiguous；　roundabout；　and　mystical。　　They　speak　of　the

〃immigration　of　persons；〃　and　mean　the　importation　of　slaves；　but　do

not　say　so。　　In　establishing　a　basis　of　representation　they　say　〃all

other　persons；〃　when　they　mean　to　say　slaveswhy　did　they　not　use

the　shortest　phrase？　In　providing　for　the　return　of　fugitives　they

say　〃persons　held　to　service　or　labor。〃　If　they　had　said　slaves　it

would　have　been　plainer；　and　less　liable　to　misconstruction。　　Why　did

n't　they　do　it？　We　cannot　doubt　that　it　was　done　on　purpose。　　Only

one　reason　is　possible；　and　that　is　supplied　us　by　one　of　the　framers

of　the　Constitutionand　it　is　not　possible　for　man　to　conceive　of

any　otherthey　expected　and　desired　that　the　system　would　come　to　an

end；　and　meant　that　when　it　did；　the　Constitution　should　not　show

that　there　ever　had　been　a　slave　in　this　good　free　country　of　ours。



I　will　dwell　on　that　no　longer。　　I　see　the　signs　of　approaching

triumph　of　the　Republicans　in　the　bearing　of　their　political

adversaries。　　　A　great　deal　of　their　war　with　us　nowadays　is　mere

bushwhacking。　　At　the　battle　of　Waterloo；　when　Napoleon's　cavalry　had

charged　again　and　again　upon　the　unbroken　squares　of　British

infantry；　at　last　they　were　giving　up　the　attempt；　and　going　off　in

disorder；　when　some　of　the　officers　in　mere　vexation　and　complete

despair　fired　their　pistols　at　those　solid　squares。　　The　Democrats

are　in　that　sort　of　extreme　desperation；　it　is　nothing　else。　　I　will

take　up　a　few　of　these　arguments。



There　is　〃the　irrepressible　conflict。〃　　How　they　rail　at　Seward　for

that　saying！　They　repeat　it　constantly；　and；　although　the　proof　has

been　thrust　under　their　noses　again　and　again　that　almost　every　good

man　since　the　formation　of　our　Government　has　uttered　that　same

sentiment；　from　General　Washington；　who　〃trusted　that　we　should　yet

have　a　confederacy　of　free　States；〃　with　Jefferson；　Jay；　Monroe；　down

to　the　latest　days；　yet　they　refuse　to　notice　that　at　all；　and

persist　in　railing　at　Seward　for　saying　it。　　Even　Roger　A。　Pryor；

editor　of　the　Richmond　Enquirer；　uttered　the　same　sentiment　in　almost

the　same　language；　and　yet　so　little　offence　did　it　give　the

Democrats　that　he　was　sent　for　to　Washington　to　edit　the　Statesthe

Douglas　organ　therewhile　Douglas　goes　into　hydrophobia　and　spasms

of　rage　because　Seward　dared　to　repeat　it。　　This　is　what　I　call

bushwhacking；　a　sort　of　argument　that　they　must　know　any　child　can

see　through。



Another　is　John　Brown：　〃You　stir　up　insurrections；　you　invade　the

South；　John　Brown！　Harper's　Ferry！〃　　Why；　John　Brown　was　not　a

Republican！　　You　have　never　implicated　a　single　Republican　in　that

Harper's　Ferry　enterprise。　　We　tell　you　that　if　any　member　of　the

Republican　party　is　guilty　in　that　matter；　you　know　it　or　you　do　not

know　it。　　If　you　do　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable　not　to　designate　the

man　and　prove　the　fact。　　If　you　do　not　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable

to　assert　it；　and　especially　to　persist　in　the　assertion　after　you

have　tried　and　failed　to　make　the　proof。　　You　need　not　be　told　that

persisting　in　a　charge　which　one　does　not　know　to　be　true　is　simply

malicious　slander。　　Some　of　you　admit　that　no　Republican　designedly

aided　or　encouraged　the　Harper's　Ferry　affair；　but　still　insist　that

our　doc