the writings-4-第4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！



provision；　and　then　he　goes　on　to　give　another　quotation　from　Judge

Douglas；　where　Judge　Trumbull　uses　this　language：



〃Judge　Douglas；　however；　on　the　same　day　and　in　the　same　debate；

probably　recollecting　or　being　reminded　of　the　fact　that　I　had

objected　to　the　Toombs　bill　when　pending　that　it　did　not　provide　for

a　submission　of　the　constitution　to　the　people；　made　another

statement；　which　is　to　be　found　in　the　same　volume　of　the　Globe；　page

22；　in　which　he　says：

'That　the　bill　was　silent　on　this　subject　was　true；　and　my　attention

was　called　to　that　about　the　time　it　was　passed；　and　I　took　the　fair

construction　to　be；　that　powers　not　delegated　were　reserved；　and　that

of　course　the　constitution　would　be　submitted　to　the　people。'



〃Whether　this　statement　is　consistent　with　the　statement　just　before

made；　that　had　the　point　been　made　it　would　have　been　yielded　to；　or

that　it　was　a　new　discovery；　you　will　determine。〃



So　I　say。　　I　do　not　know　whether　Judge　Douglas　will　dispute　this；　and

yet　maintain　his　position　that　Trumbull's　evidence　〃was　forged　from

beginning　to　end。〃　　I　will　remark　that　I　have　not　got　these

Congressional　Globes　with　me。　　They　are　large　books；　and　difficult　to

carry　about；　and　if　Judge　Douglas　shall　say　that　on　these　points

where　Trumbull　has　quoted　from　them　there　are　no　such　passages　there；

I　shall　not　be　able　to　prove　they　are　there　upon　this　occasion；　but　I

will　have　another　chance。　　Whenever　he　points　out　the　forgery　and

says；　〃I　declare　that　this　particular　thing　which　Trumbull　has

uttered　is　not　to　be　found　where　he　says　it　is；〃　then　my　attention

will　be　drawn　to　that；　and　I　will　arm　myself　for　the　contest；　stating

now　that　I　have　not　the　slightest　doubt　on　earth　that　I　will　find

every　quotation　just　where　Trumbull　says　it　is。　　Then　the　question

is；　How　can　Douglas　call　that　a　forgery？　　How　can　he　make　out　that　it

is　a　forgery？　　What　is　a　forgery？　　It　is　the　bringing　forward

something　in　writing　or　in　print　purporting　to　be　of　certain　effect

when　it　is　altogether　untrue。　　If　you　come　forward　with　my　note　for

one　hundred　dollars　when　I　have　never　given　such　a　note；　there　is　a

forgery。　　If　you　come　forward　with　a　letter　purporting　to　be　written

by　me　which　I　never　wrote；　there　is　another　forgery。　　If　you　produce

anything　in　writing　or　in　print　saying　it　is　so　and　so；　the　document

not　being　genuine；　a　forgery　has　been　committed。　　How　do　you　make

this　forgery　when　every　piece　of　the　evidence　is　genuine？　　　If　Judge

Douglas　does　say　these　documents　and　quotations　are　false　and　forged；

he　has　a　full　right　to　do　so；　but　until　he　does　it　specifically；　we

don't　know　how　to　get　at　him。　　If　he　does　say　they　are　false　and

forged；　I　will　then　look　further　into　it；　and　presume　I　can　procure

the　certificates　of　the　proper　officers　that　they　are　genuine　copies。

I　have　no　doubt　each　of　these　extracts　will　be　found　exactly　where

Trumbull　says　it　is。　　Then　I　leave　it　to　you　if　Judge　Douglas；　in

making　his　sweeping　charge　that　Judge　Trumbull's　evidence　is　forged

from　beginning　to　end；　at　all　meets　the　case；if　that　is　the　way　to

get　at　the　facts。　　I　repeat　again；　if　he　will　point　out　which　one　is

a　forgery；　I　will　carefully　examine　it；　and　if　it　proves　that　any　one

of　them　is　really　a　forgery；　it　will　not　be　me　who　will　hold　to　it

any　longer。　　I　have　always　wanted　to　deal　with　everyone　I　meet

candidly　and　honestly。　　If　I　have　made　any　assertion　not　warranted　by

facts；　and　it　is　pointed　out　to　me；　I　will　withdraw　it　cheerfully。

But　I　do　not　choose　to　see　Judge　Trumbull　calumniated；　and　the

evidence　he　has　brought　forward　branded　in　general　terms　〃a　forgery

from　beginning　to　end。〃　　This　is　not　the　legal　way　of　meeting　a

charge；　and　I　submit　it　to　all　intelligent　persons；　both　friends　of

Judge　Douglas　and　of　myself；　whether　it　is。



The　point　upon　Judge　Douglas　is　this：　The　bill　that　went　into　his

hands　had　the　provision　in　it　for　a　submission　of　the　constitution　to

the　people；　and　I　say　its　language　amounts　to　an　express　provision

for　a　submission；　and　that　he　took　the　provision　out。　　He　says　it　was

known　that　the　bill　was　silent　in　this　particular；　but　I　say；　Judge

Douglas；　it　was　not　silent　when　you　got　it。　　It　was　vocal　with　the

declaration；　when　you　got　it；　for　a　submission　of　the　constitution　to

the　people。　　And　now；　my　direct　question　to　Judge　Douglas　is；　to

answer　why；　if　he　deemed　the　bill　silent　on　this　point；　he　found　it

necessary　to　strike　out　those　particular　harmless　words。　　If　he　had

found　the　bill　silent　and　without　this　provision；　he　might　say　what

he　does　now。　　If　he　supposes　it　was　implied　that　the　constitution

would　be　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people；　how　could　these　two　lines

so　encumber　the　statute　as　to　make　it　necessary　to　strike　them　out？

How　could　he　infer　that　a　submission　was　still　implied；　after　its

express　provision　had　been　stricken　from　the　bill？　　I　find　the　bill

vocal　with　the　provision；　while　he　silenced　it。　　He　took　it　out；　and

although　he　took　out　the　other　provision　preventing　a　submission　to　a

vote　of　the　people；　I　ask；　Why　did　you　first　put　it　in？　　I　ask　him

whether　he　took　the　original　provision　out；　which　Trumbull　alleges

was　in　the　bill。　　If　he　admits　that　he　did　take　it；　I　ask　him　what　he

did　it　for。　　It　looks　to　us　as　if　he　had　altered　the　bill。　　If　it

looks　differently　to　him；if　he　has　a　different　reason　for　his

action　from　the　one　we　assign　himhe　can　tell　it。　　I　insist　upon

knowing　why　he　made　the　bill　silent　upon　that　point　when　it　was　vocal

before　he　put　his　hands　upon　it。



I　was　told；　before　my　last　paragraph；　that　my　time　was　within　three

minutes　of　being　out。　　I　presume　it　is　expired　now；　I　therefore

close。









Mr。　LINCOLN'S　REJOINDER。



FELLOW…CITIZENS：　It　follows　as　a　matter　of　course　that　a　half…hour

answer　to　a　speech　of　an　hour　and　a　half　can　be　but　a　very　hurried

one。　　I　shall　only　be　able　to　touch　upon　a　few　of　the　points

suggested　by　Judge　Douglas；　and　give　them　a　brief　attention；　while　I

shall　have　to　totally　omit　others　for　the　want　of　time。



Judge　Douglas　has　said　to　you　that　he　has　not　been　able　to　get　from

me　an　answer　to　the　question　whether　I　am　in　favor　of　negro

citizenship。　　So　far　as　I　know　the　Judge　never　asked　me　the　question

before。　　He　shall　have　no　occasion　to　ever　ask　it　again；　for　I　tell

him　very　frankly　that　I　am　not　in　favor　of　negro　citizenship。　　This

furnishes　me　an　occasion　for　saying　a　few　words　upon　the　subject。　　I

mentioned　in　a　certain　speech　of　mine；　which　has　been　printed；　that

the　Supreme　Court　had　decided　that　a　negro　could　not　possibly　be　made

a　citizen；　and　without　saying　what　was　my　ground　of　complaint　in

regard　to　that；　or　whether　I　had　any　ground　of　complaint；　Judge

Douglas　has　from　that　thing　manufactured　nearly　everything　that　he

ever　says　about　my　disposition　to　produce　an　equality　between　the

negroes　and　the　white　people。　　If　any　one　will　read　my　speech；　he

will　find　I　mentioned　that　as　one　of　the　points　decided　in　the　course

of　the　Supreme　Court　opinions；　but　I　did　not　state　what　objection　I

had　to　it。　　But　Judge　Douglas　tells　the　people　what　my　objection　was

when　I　did　not　tell　them　myself。　　Now；　my　opinion　is　that　the

different　States　have　the　power　to　make　a　negro　a　citizen　under　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States　if　they　choose。　　The　Dred　Scott

decision　decides　that　they　have　not　that　power。　　If　the　State　of

Illinois　had　that　power；　I　should　be　opposed　to　the　exercise　of　it。

That　is　all　I　have　to　say　about　it。



Judge　Douglas　has　told　me　that　he　heard　my　speeches　north　and　my

speeches　south；　that　he　had　heard　me　at　Ottawa　and　at　Freeport　in　the

north　and　recently　at　Jonesboro　in　the　south；　and　there　was　a　very

different　cast　of　sentiment　in　the　speeches　made　at　the　different

points。　　I　will　not　charge　upon　Judge　Douglas　that　he　wilfully

misrepresents　me；　but　I　call　upon　every　fair…minded　man　to　take　these

speeches　and　read　them；　and　I　dare　him　to　point　out　any　difference

between　my　speeches　north　and　south。　　While　I　am　here　perhaps　I　ought

to　say　a　word；　if　I　have　the　time；　in　regard　to　the　latter　portion　of

the　Judge's　speech；　which　was　a　sort　of　declamation　in　reference　to

my　having　said　I　entertained　the　belief　that　this　government　would

not　endure　half　slave　and　half　free。　　I　have　said　so；　and　I　did　not

say　it　without　what　seemed　to　me　to　be　good　reasons。　　It　perhaps

would　require　more　time　than　I　have　now　to　set　forth　these　reasons　in

detail；　but　let　me　ask　you　a　few　questions。　　Have　we　ever　had　any

peace　on　this　slavery　question？　　When　are　we　to　have　peace　upon　it；

if　it　is　kept　in　the　position　it　now　occupies？　　How　are　we　ever　to

have　peace　upon　it？　　That　is　an　important　question。　　To　be　sure；　if

we　will　all　stop；　and　allow　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　to　march　on

in　their　present　career　until　they　plant　the　institution　all　over　the

nation；　here　and　wherever　else　our　flag　waves；　and　we　acquiesce　in

it；　there　will　be　peace。　　But　let　me　ask　Judge　Douglas　how　he　is

going　to　get　the　people　to　do　that？　　They　have　been　wrangling　over

this　question　for　at　least　forty　years。　　This　was　the　cause　of　the

agitation　resulting　in　the　Missouri　Compromise；　this　produced　the

troubles　at　the　annexation　of　Texas；　in　the　acquisition　of　the

territory　acquired　in　the　Mexican　War。　　Again；　this　was　the　trouble

which　was　quieted　by　the　Compromise　of　1850；　when　it　was　settled

〃forever　〃　as　both　the　great　political　parties　declared　in　their

National　Conventions。　　That　〃forever〃　turned　out　to　be　just　four

years；　when　Judge　Douglas　himself　reopened　it。　　When　is　it　likely　to

come　to　an　end？　　He　introduced　the　Nebraska　Bill　in　1854　to　put

another　end　to　the　slavery　agitation。　　He　promised　that　it　would

finish　it　all　up　immediately；　and　he　has　never　made　a　speech　since；

until　he　got　into　a　quarrel　with　the　President　about　the　Lecompton

Constitution；　in　which　he　has　not　declared　that　w