the writings-4-第9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！



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

and　elect　Harris　to　Congress；　and　that　object　was　known　to　be

exceedingly　dear　to　Judge　Douglas　at　that　time。　　Harris　and　Douglas

were　both　in　Springfield　when　the　Convention　was　in　session；　and

although　they　both　left　before　the　fraud　appeared　in　the　Register；

subsequent　events　show　that　they　have　both　had　their　eyes　fixed　upon

that　Convention。



The　fraud　having　been　apparently　successful　upon　the　occasion；　both

Harris　and　Douglas　have　more　than　once　since　then　been　attempting　to

put　it　to　new　uses。　　As　the　fisherman's　wife；　whose　drowned　husband

was　brought　home　with　his　body　full　of　eels；　said　when　she　was　asked

what　was　to　be　done　with　him；　〃Take　the　eels　out　and　set　him　again；〃

so　Harris　and　Douglas　have　shown　a　disposition　to　take　the　eels　out

of　that　stale　fraud　by　which　they　gained　Harris's　election；　and　set

the　fraud　again　more　than　once。　　On　the　9th　of　July；　1856；　Douglas

attempted　a　repetition　of　it　upon　Trumbull　on　the　floor　of　the　Senate

of　the　United　States；　as　will　appear　from　the　appendix　of　the

Congressional　Globe　of　that　date。



On　the　9th　of　August；　Harris　attempted　it　again　upon　Norton　in　the

House　of　Representatives；　as　will　appear　by　the　same　documents；the

appendix　to　the　Congressional　Globe　of　that　date。　　On　the　21st　of

August　last；　all　threeLanphier；　Douglas；　and　Harrisreattempted　it

upon　me　at　Ottawa。　　It　has　been　clung　to　and　played　out　again　and

again　as　an　exceedingly　high　trump　by　this　blessed　trio。　　And　now

that　it　has　been　discovered　publicly　to　be　a　fraud　we　find　that　Judge

Douglas　manifests　no　surprise　at　it　at　all。　　He　makes　no　complaint　of

Lanphier；　who　must　have　known　it　to　be　a　fraud　from　the　beginning。

He；　Lanphier；　and　Harris　are　just　as　cozy　now　and　just　as　active　in

the　concoction　of　new　schemes　as　they　were　before　the　general

discovery　of　this　fraud。　　Now；　all　this　is　very　natural　if　they　are

all　alike　guilty　in　that　fraud；　and　it　is　very　unnatural　if　any　one

of　them　is　innocent。　　Lanphier　perhaps　insists　that　the　rule　of　honor

among　thieves　does　not　quite　require　him　to　take　all　upon　himself；

and　consequently　my　friend　Judge　Douglas　finds　it　difficult　to　make　a

satisfactory　report　upon　his　investigation。　　But　meanwhile　the　three

are　agreed　that　each　is　〃a　most　honorable　man。〃



Judge　Douglas　requires　an　indorsement　of　his　truth　and　honor　by　a

re…election　to　the　United　States　Senate；　and　he　makes　and　reports

against　me　and　against　Judge　Trumbull；　day　after　day；　charges　which

we　know　to　be　utterly　untrue；　without　for　a　moment　seeming　to　think

that　this　one　unexplained　fraud；　which　he　promised　to　investigate；

will　be　the　least　drawback　to　his　claim　to　belief。　　Harris　ditto。　　He

asks　a　re…election　to　the　lower　House　of　Congress　without　seeming　to

remember　at　all　that　he　is　involved　in　this　dishonorable　fraud！　　The

Illinois　State　Register；　edited　by　Lanphier；　then；　as　now；　the

central　organ　of　both　Harris　and　Douglas；　continues　to　din　the　public

ear　with　this　assertion；　without　seeming　to　suspect　that　these

assertions　are　at　all　lacking　in　title　to　belief。



After　all；　the　question　still　recurs　upon　us；　How　did　that　fraud

originally　get　into　the　State　Register。？　　Lanphier　then；　as　now；　was

the　editor　of　that　paper。　　Lanphier　knows。　　Lanphier　cannot　be

ignorant　of　how　and　by　whom　it　was　originally　concocted。　　Can　he　be

induced　to　tell；　or；　if　he　has　told；　can　Judge　Douglas　be　induced　to

tell　how　it　originally　was　concocted？　　It　may　be　true　that　Lanphier

insists　that　the　two　men　for　whose　benefit　it　was　originally　devised

shall　at　least　bear　their　share　of　it！　　How　that　is；　I　do　not　know；

and　while　it　remains　unexplained　I　hope　to　be　pardoned　if　I　insist

that　the　mere　fact　of　Judge　Douglas　making　charges　against　Trumbull

and　myself　is　not　quite　sufficient　evidence　to　establish　them！



While　we　were　at　Freeport；　in　one　of　these　joint　discussions；　I

answered　certain　interrogatories　which　Judge　Douglas　had　propounded

to　me；　and　then　in　turn　propounded　some　to　him；　which　he　in　a　sort　of

way　answered。　　The　third　one　of　these　interrogatories　I　have　with　me；

and　wish　now　to　make　some　comments　upon　it。　　It　was　in　these　words：

　〃If　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　shall　decide　that　the

States　cannot　exclude　slavery　from　their　limits；　are　you　in　favor　of

acquiescing　in；　adhering　to；　and　following　such　decision　as　a　rule　of

political　action？〃



To　this　interrogatory　Judge　Douglas　made　no　answer　in　any　just　sense

of　the　word。　　He　contented　himself　with　sneering　at　the　thought　that

it　was　possible　for　the　Supreme　Court　ever　to　make　such　a　decision。

He　sneered　at　me　for　propounding　the　interrogatory。　　I　had　not

propounded　it　without　some　reflection；　and　I　wish　now　to　address　to

this　audience　some　remarks　upon　it。



In　the　second　clause　of　the　sixth　article；　I　believe　it　is；　of　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States；　we　find　the　following　language：



〃This　Constitution　and　the　laws　of　the　United　States　which　shall　be

made　in　pursuance　thereof；　and　all　treaties　made；　or　which　shall　be

made；　under　the　authority　of　the　United　States；　shall　be　the　supreme

law　of　the　land；　and　the　judges　in　every　State　shall　be　bound

thereby；　anything　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　to　the

contrary　notwithstanding。〃



The　essence　of　the　Dred　Scott　case　is　compressed　into　the　sentence

which　I　will　now　read：



〃Now；　as　we　have　already　said　in　an　earlier　part　of　this　opinion；

upon　a　different　point；　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is

distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution。〃



I　repeat　it；　〃The　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and

expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution〃！　　What　is　it　to　be　〃affirmed〃

in　the　Constitution？　　Made　firm　in　the　Constitution；　so　made　that　it

cannot　be　separated　from　the　Constitution　without　breaking　the

Constitution；　durable　as　the　Constitution；　and　part　of　the

Constitution。　　Now；　remembering　the　provision　of　the　Constitution

which　I　have　readaffirming　that　that　instrument　is　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；　that　the　judges　of　every　State　shall　be　bound　by　it；　any

law　or　constitution　of　any　State　to　the　contrary　notwithstanding；

that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　affirmed　in　that

Constitution；　is　made；　formed　into；　and　cannot　be　separated　from　it

without　breaking　it；　durable　as　the　instrument；　part　of　the

instrument；what　follows　as　a　short　and　even　syllogistic　argument

from　it？　　I　think　it　follows；　and　I　submit　to　the　consideration　of

men　capable　of　arguing　whether；　as　I　state　it；　in　syllogistic　form；

the　argument　has　any　fault　in　it：



Nothing　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　can　destroy　a　right

distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States。



The　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed

in　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。



Therefore；　nothing　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　can

destroy　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave。



I　believe　that　no　fault　can　be　pointed　out　in　that　argument；　assuming

the　truth　of　the　premises；　the　conclusion；　so　far　as　I　have　capacity

at　all　to　understand　it；　follows　inevitably。　　There　is　a　fault　in　it

as　I　think；　but　the　fault　is　not　in　the　reasoning；　but　the　falsehood

in　fact　is　a　fault　of　the　premises。　　I　believe　that　the　right　of

property　in　a　slave　is　not　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the

Constitution；　and　Judge　Douglas　thinks　it　is。　　I　believe　that　the

Supreme　Court　and　the　advocates　of　that　decision　may　search　in　vain

for　the　place　in　the　Constitution　where　the　right　of　property　in　a

slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　I　say；　therefore；　that　I

think　one　of　the　premises　is　not　true　in　fact。　　But　it　is　true　with

Judge　Douglas。　　It　is　true　with　the　Supreme　Court　who　pronounced　it。

They　are　estopped　from　denying　it；　and　being　estopped　from　denying

it；　the　conclusion　follows　that；　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States　being　the　supreme　law；　no　constitution　or　law　can　interfere

with　it。　　It　being　affirmed　in　the　decision　that　the　right　of

property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the

Constitution；　the　conclusion　inevitably　follows　that　no　State　law　or

constitution　can　destroy　that　right。　　I　then　say　to　Judge　Douglas　and

to　all　others　that　I　think　it　will　take　a　better　answer　than　a　sneer

to　show　that　those　who　have　said　that　the　right　of　property　in　a

slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution；　are

not　prepared　to　show　that　no　constitution　or　law　can　destroy　that

right。　　I　say　I　believe　it　will　take　a　far　better　argument　than　a

mere　sneer　to　show　to　the　minds　of　intelligent　men　that　whoever　has

so　said　is　not　prepared；　whenever　public　sentiment　is　so　far　advanced

as　to　justify　it；　to　say　the　other。　　This　is　but　an　opinion；　and　the

opinion　of　one　very　humble　man；　but　it　is　my　opinion　that　the　Dred

Scott　decision；　as　it　is；　never　would　have　been　made　in　its　present

form　if　the　party　that　made　it　had　not　been　sustained　previously　by

the　elections。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　the　new　Dred　Scott　decision；

deciding　against　the　right　of　the　people　of　the　States　to　exclude

slavery；　will　never　be　made　if　that　party　is　not　sustained　by　the

elections。　　I　believe；　further；　that　it　is　just　as　sure　to　be　made　as

to…morrow　is　to　come；　if　that　party　shall　be　sustained。　　I　have　said；

upon　a　former　occasion；　and　I　repeat　it　now；　that　the　course　of

arguement　that　Judge　Douglas　makes　use　of　upon　this　subject　（I　charge

not　his　motives　in　this）；　is　preparing　the　public　mind　for　that　new

Dred　Scott　decision。　　I　have　asked　him　again　to　point　out　to　me　the

reasons　for　his　first　adherence　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision　as　it　is。

I　have　turned　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　General　Jackson　differed

with　him　in　regard　to　the　political　obligation　of　a　Supreme　Court

decision。　　I　have　asked　his　attention　to　the　fact　th