the writings-4-第7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！



〃Democrat。〃　　＇Turning　to　Judge　Douglas。＇　what　think　you　of　this？



So；　again；　there　is　another　thing　to　which　I　would　ask　the　Judge's

attention　upon　this　subject。　　In　the　contest　of　1856　his　party

delighted　to　call　themselves　together　as　the　〃National　Democracy〃；

but　now；　if　there　should　be　a　notice　put　up　anywhere　for　a　meeting　of

the　〃National　Democracy；〃　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　would　not

come。　　They　would　not　suppose　themselves　invited。　　They　would

understand　that　it　was　a　call　for　those　hateful　postmasters　whom　he

talks　about。



Now　a　few　words　in　regard　to　these　extracts　from　speeches　of　mine

which　Judge　Douglas　has　read　to　you；　and　which　he　supposes　are　in

very　great　contrast　to　each　other。　　Those　speeches　have　been　before

the　public　for　a　considerable　time；　and　if　they　have　any

inconsistency　in　them；　if　there　is　any　conflict　in　them；　the　public

have　been　able　to　detect　it。　　When　the　Judge　says；　in　speaking　on

this　subject；　that　I　make　speeches　of　one　sort　for　the　people　of　the

northern　end　of　the　State；　and　of　a　different　sort　for　the　southern

people；　he　assumes　that　I　do　not　understand　that　my　speeches　will　be

put　in　print　and　read　north　and　south。　　I　knew　all　the　while　that　the

speech　that　I　made　at　Chicago；　and　the　one　I　made　at　Jonesboro　and

the　one　at　Charleston；　would　all　be　put　in　print；　and　all　the　reading

and　intelligent　men　in　the　community　would　see　them　and　know　all

about　my　opinions。　　And　I　have　not　supposed；　and　do　not　now　suppose；

that　there　is　any　conflict　whatever　between　them。　　But　the　Judge　will

have　it　that　if　we　do　not　confess　that　there　is　a　sort　of　inequality

between　the　white　and　black　races　which　justifies　us　in　making　them

slaves；　we　must　then　insist　that　there　is　a　degree　of　equality　that

requires　us　to　make　them　our　wives。　　Now；　I　have　all　the　while　taken

a　broad　distinction　in　regard　to　that　matter；　and　that　is　all　there

is　in　these　different　speeches　which　he　arrays　here；　and　the　entire

reading　of　either　of　the　speeches　will　show　that　that　distinction　was

made。　　Perhaps　by　taking　two　parts　of　the　same　speech　he　could　have

got　up　as　much　of　a　conflict　as　the　one　he　has　found。　　I　have　all　the

while　maintained　that　in　so　far　as　it　should　be　insisted　that　there

was　an　equality　between　the　white　and　black　races　that　should　produce

a　perfect　social　and　political　equality；　it　was　an　impossibility。

This　you　have　seen　in　my　printed　speeches；　and　with　it　I　have　said

that　in　their　right　to　〃life；　liberty；　and　the　pursuit　of　happiness；〃

as　proclaimed　in　that　old　Declaration；　the　inferior　races　are　our

equals。　　And　these　declarations　I　have　constantly　made　in　reference

to　the　abstract　moral　question；　to　contemplate　and　consider　when　we

are　legislating　about　any　new　country　which　is　not　already　cursed

with　the　actual　presence　of　the　evil；slavery。　　I　have　never

manifested　any　impatience　with　the　necessities　that　spring　from　the

actual　presence　of　black　people　amongst　us；　and　the　actual　existence

of　slavery　amongst　us　where　it　does　already　exist；　but　I　have

insisted　that；　in　legislating　for　new　countries　where　it　does　not

exist　there　is　no　just　rule　other　than　that　of　moral　and　abstract

right！　　With　reference　to　those　new　countries；　those　maxims　as　to　the

right　of　a　people　to　〃life；　liberty；　and　the　pursuit　of　happiness〃

were　the　just　rules　to　be　constantly　referred　to。　　There　is　no

misunderstanding　this；　except　by　men　interested　to　misunderstand　it。

I　take　it　that　I　have　to　address　an　intelligent　and　reading

community；　who　will　peruse　what　I　say；　weigh　it；　and　then　judge

whether　I　advanced　improper　or　unsound　views；　or　whether　I　advanced

hypocritical；　and　deceptive；　and　contrary　views　in　different　portions

of　the　country。　　I　believe　myself　to　be　guilty　of　no　such　thing　as

the　latter；　though；　of　course；　I　cannot　claim　that　I　am　entirely　free

from　all　error　in　the　opinions　I　advance。



The　Judge　has　also　detained　us　awhile　in　regard　to　the　distinction

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；

con