the writings-4-第8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！



come　in　in　that　shape；　because　in　another　way　it　was　paid　for；

considering　that　as　a　part　of　that　system　of　measures　called　the

Compromise　of　1850；　which　finally　included　half…a…dozen　acts。　　It

included　the　admission　of　California　as　a　free　State；　which　was　kept

out　of　the　Union　for　half　a　year　because　it　had　formed　a　free

constitution。　　It　included　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas；

which　had　been　undefined　before；　which　was　in　itself　a　slavery

question；　for　if　you　pushed　the　line　farther　west；　you　made　Texas

larger；　and　made　more　slave　territory；　while；　if　you　drew　the　line

toward　the　east；　you　narrowed　the　boundary　and　diminished　the　domain

of　slavery；　and　by　so　much　increased　free　territory。　　It　included　the

abolition　of　the　slave　trade　in　the　District　of　Columbia。　　It

included　the　passage　of　a　new　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　All　these　things

were　put　together；　and；　though　passed　in　separate　acts；　were

nevertheless；　in　legislation　（as　the　speeches　at　the　time　will　show）；

made　to　depend　upon　each　other。　　Each　got　votes　with　the

understanding　that　the　other　measures　were　to　pass；　and　by　this

system　of　compromise；　in　that　series　of　measures；　those　two　bills

the　New　Mexico　and　Utah　billswere　passed：　and　I　say　for　that　reason

they　could　not　be　taken　as　models；　framed　upon　their　own　intrinsic

principle；　for　all　future　Territories。　　And　I　have　the　evidence　of

this　in　the　fact　that　Judge　Douglas；　a　year　afterward；　or　more　than　a

year　afterward；　perhaps；　when　he　first　introduced　bills　for　the

purpose　of　framing　new　Territories；　did　not　attempt　to　follow　these

bills　of　New　Mexico　and　Utah；　and　even　when　he　introduced　this

Nebraska　Bill；　I　think　you　will　discover　that　he　did　not　exactly

follow　them。　　But　I　do　not　wish　to　dwell　at　great　length　upon　this

branch　of　the　discussion。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　a　thorough

investigation　will　show　most　plainly　that　the　New　Mexico　and　Utah

bills　were　part　of　a　system　of　compromise；　and　not　designed　as

patterns　for　future　Territorial　legislation；　and　that　this　Nebraska

Bill　did　not　follow　them　as　a　pattern　at　all。



The　Judge　tells；　in　proceeding；　that　he　is　opposed　to　making　any

odious　distinctions　between　free　and　slave　States。　　I　am　altogether

unaware　that　the　Republicans　are　in　favor　of　making　any　odious

distinctions　between　the　free　and　slave　States。　　But　there　is　still　a

difference；　I　think；　between　Judge　Douglas　and　the　Republicans　in

this。　　I　suppose　that　the　real　difference　between　Judge　Douglas　and

his　friends；　and　the　Republicans　on　the　contrary；　is；　that　the　Judge

is　not　in　favor　of　making　any　difference　between　slavery　and　liberty；

that　he　is　in　favor　of　eradicating；　of　pressing　out　of　view；　the

questions　of　preference　in　this　country　for　free　or　slave

institutions；　and　consequently　every　sentiment　he　utters　discards　the

idea　that　there　is　any　wrong　in　slavery。　　Everything　that　emanates

from　him　or　his　coadjutors　in　their　course　of　policy　carefully

excludes　the　thought　that　there　is　anything　wrong　in　slavery。　　All

their　arguments；　if　you　will　consider　them；　will　be　seen　to　exclude

the　thought　that　there　is　anything　whatever　wrong　in　slavery。　　If　you

will　take　the　Judge's　speeches；　and　select　the　short　and　pointed

sentences　expressed　by　him；as　his　declaration　that　he　〃don't　care

whether　slavery　is　voted　up　or　down；〃you　will　see　at　once　that　this

is　perfectly　logical；　if　you　do　not　admit　that　slavery　is　wrong。　　If

you　do　admit　that　it　is　wrong；　Judge　Douglas　cannot　logically　say　he

don't　care　whether　a　wrong　is　voted　up　or　voted　down。　　Judge　Douglas

declares　that　if　any　community　wants　slavery　they　have　a　right　to

have　it。　　He　can　say　that　logically；　if　he　says　that　there　is　no

wrong　in　slavery；　but　if　you　admit　that　there　is　a　wrong　in　it；　he

cannot　logically　say　that　anybody　has　a　right　to　do　wrong。　　He

insists　that　upon　the　score　of　equality　the　owners　of　slaves　and

owners　of　propertyof　horses　and　every　other　sort　of　property

should　be　alike；　and　hold　them　alike　in　a　new　Territory。　　That　is

perfectly　logical　if　the　two　species　of　property　are　alike　and　are

equally　founded　in　right。　　But　if　you　admit　that　one　of　them　is

wrong；　you　cannot　institute　any　equality　between　right　and　wrong。

And　from　this　difference　of　sentiment；the　belief　on　the　part　of　one

that　the　institution　is　wrong；　and　a　policy　springing　from　that

belief　which　looks　to　the　arrest　of　the　enlargement　of　that　wrong；

and　this　other　sentiment；　that　it　is　no　wrong；　and　a　policy　sprung

from　that　sentiment；　which　will　tolerate　no　idea　of　preventing　the

wrong　from　growing　larger；　and　looks　to　there　never　being　an　end　to

it　through　all　the　existence　of　things；arises　the　real　difference

between　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　on　the　one　hand　and　the

Republicans　on　the　other。　　Now；　I　confess　myself　as　belonging　to　that

class　in　the　country　who　contemplate　slavery　as　a　moral；　social；　and

political　evil；　having　due　regard　for　its　actual　existence　amongst　us

and　the　difficulties　of　getting　rid　of　it　in　any　satisfactory　way；

and　to　all　the　constitutional　obligations　which　have　been　thrown

about　it；　but；　nevertheless；　desire　a　policy　that　looks　to　the

prevention　of　it　as　a　wrong；　and　looks　hopefully　to　the　time　when　as

a　wrong　it　may　come　to　an　end。



Judge　Douglas　has　again；　for；　I　believe；　the　fifth　time；　if　not　the

seventh；　in　my　presence；　reiterated　his　charge　of　a　conspiracy　or

combination　between　the　National　Democrats　and　Republicans。　　What

evidence　Judge　Douglas　has　upon　this　subject　I　know　not；　inasmuch　as

he　never　favors　us　with　any。　　I　have　said　upon　a　former　occasion；　and

I　do　not　choose　to　suppress　it　now；　that　I　have　no　objection　to　the

division　in　the　Judge's　party。　　He　got　it　up　himself。　　It　was　all　his

and　their　work。　　He　had；　I　think；　a　great　deal　more　to　do　with　the

steps　that　led　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　than　Mr。　Buchanan　had；

though　at　last；　when　they　reached　it；　they　quarreled　over　it；　and

their　friends　divided　upon　it。　　I　am　very　free　to　confess　to　Judge

Douglas　that　I　have　no　objection　to　the　division；　but　I　defy　the

Judge　to　show　any　evidence　that　I　have　in　any　way　promoted　that

division；　unless　he　insists　on　being　a　witness　himself　in　merely

saying　so。　　I　can　give　all　fair　friends　of　Judge　Douglas　here　to

understand　exactly　the　view　that　Republicans　take　in　regard　to　that

division。　　Don't　you　remember　how　two　years　ago　the　opponents　of　the

Democratic　party　were　divided　between　Fremont　and　Fillmore？　　I　guess

you　do。　　Any　Democrat　who　remembers　that　division　will　remember　also

that　he　was　at　the　time　very　glad　of　it；　and　then　he　will　be　able　to

see　all　there　is　between　the　National　Democrats　and　the　Republicans。

What　we　now　think　of　the　two　divisions　of　Democrats；　you　then　thought

of　the　Fremont　and　Fillmore　divisions。　　That　is　all　there　is　of　it。



But　if　the　Judge　continues　to　put　forward　the　declaration　that　there

is　an　unholy　and　unnatural　alliance　between　the　Republicans　and　the

National　Democrats；　I　now　want　to　enter　my　protest　against　receiving

him　as　an　entirely　competent　witness　upon　that　subject。　　I　want　to

call　to　the　Judge's　attention　an　attack　he　made　upon　me　in　the　first

one　of　these

debates；　at　Ottawa；　on　the　21st　of　August。　　In　order　to　fix　extreme

Abolitionism　upon　me；　Judge　Douglas　read　a　set　of　resolutions　which

he　declared　had　been　passed　by　a　Republican　State　Convention；　in

October；　1854；　at　Springfield；　Illinois；　and　he　declared　I　had　taken

part　in　that　Convention。　　It　turned　out　that　although　a　few　men

calling　themselves　an　anti…Nebraska　State　Convention　had　sat　at

Springfield　about　that　time；　yet　neither　did　I　take　any　part　in　it；

nor　did　it　pass　the　resolutions　or　any　such　resolutions　as　Judge

Douglas　read。　　So　apparent　had　it　become　that　the　resolutions　which

he　read　had　not　been　passed　at　Springfield　at　all；　nor　by　a　State

Convention　in　which　I　had　taken　part；　that　seven　days　afterward；　at

Freeport；　Judge　Douglas　declared　that　he　had　been　misled　by　Charles

H。　　Lanphier；　editor　of　the　State　Register；　and　Thomas　L。　　Harris；

member　of　Congress　in　that　district；　and　he　promised　in　that　speech

that　when　he　went　to　Springfield　he　would　investigate　the　matter。

Since　then　Judge　Douglas　has　been　to　Springfield；　and　I　presume　has

made　the　investigation；　but　a　month　has　passed　since　he　has　been

there；　and；　so　far　as　I　know；　he　has　made　no　report　of　the　result　of

his　investigation。　　I　have　waited　as　I　think　sufficient　time　for　the

report　of　that　investigation；　and　I　have　some　curiosity　to　see　and

hear　it。　　A　fraud；　an　absolute　forgery　was　committed；　and　the

perpetration　of　it　was　traced　to　the　three；Lanphier；　Harris；　and

Douglas。　　Whether　it　can　be　narrowed　in　any　way　so　as　to　exonerate

any　one　of　them；　is　what　Judge　Douglas's　report　would　probably　show。



It　is　true　that　the　set　of　resolutions　read　by　Judge　Douglas　were

published　in　the　Illinois　State　Register　on　the　16th　of　October；

1854；　as　being　the　resolutions　of　an　anti…Nebraska　Convention　which

had　sat　in　that　same　month　of　October；　at　Springfield。　　But　it　is

also　true　that　the　publication　in　the　Register　was　a　forgery　then；

and　the　question　is　still　behind；　which　of　the　three；　if　not　all　of

them；　committed　that　forgery。　　The　idea　that　it　was　done　by　mistake

is　absurd。　　The　article　in　the　Illinois　State　Register　contains　part

of　the　real　proceedings　of　that　Springfield　Convention；　showing　that

the　writer　of　the　article　had　the　real　proceedings　before　him；　and

purposely　threw　out　the　genuine　resolutions　passed　by　the　Convention

and　fraudulently　substituted　the　others。　　Lanphier　then；　as　now；　was

the　editor　of　the　Register；　so　that　there　seems　to　be　but　little　room

for　his　escape。　　But　then　it　is　to　be　borne　in　mind　that　Lanphier　had

less　interest　in　the　object　of　that　forgery　than　either　of　the　other

two。　　The　main　object　of　that　forgery　at　that　time　was　to　beat　Yates

and　elect　Harris　to　Congress；　and　tha