the writings-3-第15部分

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！


falsifies　as　much　as　he　who　knowingly　tells　a　falsehood。　　I　want

to　call　your　attention　to　a　little　discussion　on　that　branch　of

the　case；　and　the　evidence　which　brought　my　mind　to　the

conclusion　which　I　expressed　as　my　belief。　　If；　in　arraying　that

evidence　I　had　stated　anything　which　was　false　or　erroneous；　it

needed　but　that　Judge　Douglas　should　point　it　out；　and　I　would

have　taken　it　back；　with　all　the　kindness　in　the　world。　　I　do　not

deal　in　that　way。　　If　I　have　brought　forward　anything　not　a　fact；

if　he　will　point　it　out；　it　will　not　even　ruffle　me　to　take　it

back。　　But　if　he　will　not　point　out　anything　erroneous　in　the

evidence；　is　it　not　rather　for　him　to　show；　by　a　comparison　of

the　evidence；　that　I　have　reasoned　falsely；　than　to　call　the

〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman〃　a　liar？　　If　I　have

reasoned　to　a　false　conclusion；　it　is　the　vocation　of　an　able

debater　to　show　by　argument　that　I　have　wandered　to　an　erroneous

conclusion。　　I　want　to　ask　your　attention　to　a　portion　of　the

Nebraska　Bill；　which　Judge　Douglas　has　quoted：



　〃It　being　the　true　intent　and　meaning　of　this　Act；　not　to

legislate　slavery　into　any　Territory　or　State；　nor　to　exclude　it

therefrom；　but　to　leave　the　people　thereof　perfectly　free　to　form

and　regulate　their　domestic　institutions　in　their　own　way；

subject　only　to　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。〃



Thereupon　Judge　Douglas　and　others　began　to　argue　in　favor　of

〃popular　sovereignty；〃　the　right　of　the　people　to　have　slaves　if

they　wanted　them；　and　to　exclude　slavery　if　they　did　not　want

them。　　〃But；〃　said；　in　substance；　a　Senator　from　Ohio　（Mr。　Chase；

I　believe）；



〃we　more　than　suspect　that　you　do　not　mean　to　allow　the　people　to

exclude　slavery　if　they　wish　to；　and　if　you　do　mean　it；　accept　an

amendment　which　I　propose；　expressly　authorizing　the　people　to

exclude　slavery。〃



I　believe　I　have　the　amendment　here　before　me；　which　was　offered；

and　under　which　the　people　of　the　Territory；　through　their

representatives；　might；　if　they　saw　fit；　prohibit　the　existence

of　slavery　therein。　　And　now　I　state　it　as　a　fact；　to　be　taken

back　if　there　is　any　mistake　about　it；　that　Judge　Douglas　and

those　acting　with　him　voted　that　amendment　down。　　I　now　think

that　those　men　who　voted　it　down　had　a　real　reason　for　doing　so。

They　know　what　that　reason　was。　　It　looks　to　us；　since　we　have

seen　the　Dred　Scott　decision　pronounced；　holding　that　〃under　the

Constitution〃　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery；　I　say　it　looks

to　outsiders；　poor；　simple；　〃amiable；　intelligent　gentlemen；〃　as

though　the　niche　was　left　as　a　place　to　put　that　Dred　Scott

decision　in；a　niche　which　would　have　been　spoiled　by　adopting

the　amendment。　　And　now；　I　say　again；　if　this　was　not　the　reason；

it　will　avail　the　Judge　much　more　to　calmly　and　good…humoredly

point　out　to　these　people　what　that　other　reason　was　for　voting

the　amendment　down；　than；　swelling　himself　up；　to　vociferate　that

he　may　be　provoked　to　call　somebody　a　liar。



Again：　There　is　in　that　same　quotation　from　the　Nebraska　Bill

this　clause：　〃It　being　the　true　intent　and　meaning　of　this　bill

not　to　legislate　slavery　into　any　Territory　or　State。〃　　　I　have

always　been　puzzled　to　know　what　business　the　word　〃State〃　had　in

that　connection。　　Judge　Douglas　knows。　　He　put　it　there。　　He

knows　what　he　put　it　there　for。　　We　outsiders　cannot　say　what　he

put　it　there　for。　　The　law　they　were　passing　was　not　about

States；　and　was　not　making　provisions　for　States。　　What　was　it

placed　there　for？　　After　seeing　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　which

holds　that　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery　from　a　Territory；　if

another　Dred　Scott　decision　shall　come；　holding　that　they　cannot

exclude　it　from　a　State；　we　shall　discover　that　when　the　word　was

originally　put　there；　it　was　in　view　of　something　which　was　to

come　in　due　time；　we　shall　see　that　it　was　the　other　half　of

something。　　I　now　say　again；　if　there　is　any　different　reason　for

putting　it　there；　Judge　Douglas；　in　a　good…humored　way；　without

calling　anybody　a　liar；　can　tell　what　the　reason　was。



When　the　Judge　spoke　at　Clinton；　he　came　very　near　making　a

charge　of　falsehood　against　me。　　He　used；　as　I　found　it　printed

in　a　newspaper；　which；　I　remember；　was　very　nearly　like　the　real

speech；　the　following　language：



〃I　did　not　answer　the　charge　＇of　conspiracy＇　before；　for　the

reason　that　I　did　not　suppose　there　was　a　man　in　America　with　a

heart　so　corrupt　as　to　believe　such　a　charge　could　be　true。　　I

have　too　much　respect　for　Mr。　Lincoln　to　suppose　he　is　serious　in

making　the　charge。〃



I　confess　this　is　rather　a　curious　view；　that　out　of　respect　for

me　he　should　consider　I　was　making　what　I　deemed　rather　a　grave

charge　in　fun。　　I　confess　it　strikes　me　rather　strangely。　　But　I

let　it　pass。　　As　the　Judge　did　not　for　a　moment　believe　that

there　was　a　man　in　America　whose　heart　was　so　〃corrupt〃　as　to

make　such　a　charge；　and　as　he　places　me　among　the　〃men　in

America〃　who　have　hearts　base　enough　to　make　such　a　charge；　I

hope　he　will　excuse　me　if　I　hunt　out　another　charge　very　like

this；　and　if　it　should　turn　out　that　in　hunting　I　should　find

that　other；　and　it　should　turn　out　to　be　Judge　Douglas　himself

who　made　it；　I　hope　he　will　reconsider　this　question　of　the　deep

corruption　of　heart　he　has　thought　fit　to　ascribe　to　me。　　In

Judge　Douglas's　speech　of　March　22；　1858；　which　I　hold　in　my

hand；　he　says：



〃In　this　connection　there　is　another　topic　to　which　I　desire　to

allude。　　I　seldom　refer　to　the　course　of　newspapers；　or　notice

the　articles　which　they　publish　in　regard　to　myself；　but　the

course　of　the　Washington　Union　has　been　so　extraordinary　for　the

last　two　or　three　months；　that　I　think　it　well　enough　to　make

some　allusion　to　it。　　It　has　read　me　out　of　the　Democratic　party

every　other　day；　at　least　for　two　or　three　months；　and　keeps

reading　me　out；　and；　as　if　it　had　not　succeeded；　still　continues

to　read　me　out；　using　such　terms　as　'traitor；'　'renegade；'

'deserter；'　and　other　kind　and　polite　epithets　of　that　nature。

Sir；　I　have　no　vindication　to　make　of　my　Democracy　against　the

Washington　Union；　or　any　other　newspapers。　　I　am　willing　to　allow

my　history　and　action　for　the　last　twenty　years　to　speak　for

themselves　as　to　my　political　principles　and　my　fidelity　to

political　obligations。　　The　Washington　Union　has　a　personal

grievance。　　When　its　editor　was　nominated　for　public　printer；　I

declined　to　vote　for　him；　and　stated　that　at　some　time　I　might

give　my　reasons　for　doing　so。　　Since　I　declined　to　give　that

vote；　this　scurrilous　abuse；　these　vindictive　and　constant

attacks　have　been　repeated　almost　daily　on　me。　　Will　any　friend

from　Michigan　read　the　article　to　which　I　allude？〃



This　is　a　part　of　the　speech。　　You　must　excuse　me　from　reading

the　entire　article　of　the　Washington　Union；　as　Mr。　Stuart　read　it

for　Mr。　Douglas。　　The　Judge　goes　on　and　sums　up；　as　I　think；

correctly：



〃Mr。　President；　you　here　find　several　distinct　propositions

advanced　boldly　by　the　Washington　Union　editorially；　and

apparently　authoritatively；　and　any　man　who　questions　any　of　them

is　denounced　as　an　Abolitionist；　a　Free…soiler；　a　fanatic。　　The

propositions　are；　first；　that　the　primary　object　of　all

government　at　its　original　institution　is　the　protection　of

person　and　property；　second；　that　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States　declares　that　the　citizens　of　each　State　shall　be　entitled

to　all　the　privileges　and　immunities　of　citizens　in　the　several

States；　and　that；　therefore；　thirdly；　all　State　laws；　whether

organic　or　otherwise；　which　prohibit　the　citizens　of　one　State

from　settling　in　another　with　their　slave　property；　and

especially　declaring　it　forfeited；　are　direct　violations　of　the

original　intention　of　the　government　and　Constitution　of　the

United　States；　and；　fourth；　that　the　emancipation　of　the　slaves

of　the　Northern　States　was　a　gross　outrage　of　the　rights　of

property；　inasmuch　as　it　was　involuntarily　done　on　the　part　of

the　owner。



〃Remember　that　this　article　was　published　in　the　Union　on　the

17th　of　November；　and　on　the　18th　appeared　the　first　article

giving　the　adhesion　of　the　Union；　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution。

It　was　in　these　words：



〃KANSAS　AND　HER　CONSTITUTION。The　vexed　question　is　settled。

The　problem　is　saved。　　The　dead　point　of　danger　is　passed。　　All

serious　trouble　to　Kansas　affairs　is　over　and　gone　。。。〃



And　a　column　nearly　of　the　same　sort。　　Then；　when　you　come　to

look　into　the　Lecompton　Constitution；　you　find　the　same　doctrine

incorporated　in　it　which　was　put　forth　editorially　in　the　Union。

What　is　it？



〃ARTICLE　7；　Section　I。　　The　right　of　property　is　before　and

higher　than　any　constitutional　sanction；　and　the　right　of　the

owner　of　a　slave　to　such　slave　and　its　increase　is　the　same　and

as　inviolable　as　the　right　of　the　owner　of　any　property

whatever。〃



Then　in　the　schedule　is　a　provision　that　the　Constitution　may　be

amended　after　1864　by　a　two…thirds　vote：



〃But　no　alteration　shall　be　made　to　affect　the　right　of　property

in　the　ownership　of　slaves。〃



〃It　will　be　seen　by　these　clauses　in　the　Lecompton　Constitution

that　they　are　identical　in　spirit　with　the　authoritative　article

in　the　Washington　Union　of　the　day　previous　to　its　indorsement　of

this　Constitution。〃



I　pass　over　some　portions　of　the　speech；　and　I　hope　that　any　one

who　feels　interested　in　this　matter　will　read　the　entire　section

of　the　speech；　and　see　whether　I　do　the　Judge　injustice。　　He

proceeds：



〃When　I　saw　that　article　in　the　Union　of　the　17th　of　November；

followed　by　the　glorification　of　the　Lecompton　Constitution　on

the　10th　of　November；　and　this　clause　in　the　Constitution

asserting　the　doctrine　that　a　State　has　no　right　to　prohibit

slavery　within　its　limits；　I　saw　that　there　was　a　fatal　blow

being　struck　at　the　sovereignty　of　the　States　of　this　Union。〃



I　stop　the