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！
could or not crawl through a crack。 So I say of the whole history
contained in his essay where he endeavored to link the men of the
Revolution to popular sovereignty。 It only requires an effort to
leap out of it； a single bound to be entirely successful。 If you
read it over； you will find that he quotes here and there from
documents of the Revolutionary times； tending to show that the people
of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in
their own way； that the British Government should not interfere； that
at one time they struggled with the British Government to be
permitted to exclude the African slave trade；if not directly； to be
permitted to exclude it indirectly； by taxation sufficient to
discourage and destroy it。 From these and many things of this sort；
judge Douglas argues that they were in favor of the people of our own
Territories excluding slavery if they wanted to； or planting it there
if they wanted to； doing just as they pleased from the time they
settled upon the Territory。 Now； however his history may apply and
whatever of his argument there may be that is sound and accurate or
unsound and inaccurate； if we can find out what these men did
themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the Territories；
does it not end the whole thing？ If； after all this labor and effort
to show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his popular
sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories；
we can show that these very men took hold of that subject； and dealt
with it； we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it。 It is not
a matter of argument or inference； but we know what they thought
about it。
It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one
important omission is made by Judge Douglas。 He selects parts of the
history of the United States upon the subject of slavery； and treats
it as the whole； omitting from his historical sketch the legislation
of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri； by which the
Missouri Compromise was established and slavery excluded from a
country half as large as the present United States。 All this is left
out of his history； and in nowise alluded to by him； so far as I can
remember； save once； when he makes a remark； that upon his principle
the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the
act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional。 All that
history has been left out。 But this part of the history of the
country was not made by the men of the Revolution。
There was another part of our political history； made by the very men
who were the actors in the Revolution； which has taken the name of
the Ordinance of '87。 Let me bring that history to your attention。
In 1784； I believe； this same Mr。 Jefferson drew up an ordinance for
the government of the country upon which we now stand； or； rather； a
frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country；
here in Ohio； our neighbors in Indiana； us who live in Illinois； our
neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan。 In that ordinance； drawn up not
only for the government of that Territory； but for the Territories
south of the Ohio River； Mr。 Jefferson expressly provided for the
prohibition of slavery。 Judge Douglas says； and perhaps is right；
that that provision was lost from that ordinance。 I believe that is
true。 When the vote was taken upon it； a majority of all present in
the Congress of the Confederation voted for it； but there were so
many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear
majority necessary； and it was lost。 But three years after that； the
Congress of the Confederation were together again； and they adopted a
new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory； not
contemplating territory south of the river； for the States owning
that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General
Government； hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the
Government owned。 In fact； the provision excluding slavery was
inserted aside； passed unanimously； or at any rate it passed and
became a part of the law of the land。 Under that ordinance we live。
First here in Ohio you were a Territory； then an enabling act was
passed； authorizing you to form a constitution and State Government；
provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordinance of
'87。 When you framed your constitution and presented it for
admission； I think you will find the legislation upon the subject
will show that； whereas you had formed a constitution that was
republican； and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87； therefore
you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States。 The
same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana； and so
with Illinois； and the same substantially with Michigan and
Wisconsin。
Not only did that Ordinance prevail； but it was constantly looked to
whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State。
Congress always turned their attention to it； and in all their
movements upon this subject they traced their course by that
Ordinance of '87。 When they admitted new States； they advertised
them of this Ordinance； as a part of the legislation of the country。
They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 throughout
the history of this country。 Begin with the men of the Revolution；
and go down for sixty entire years； and until the last scrap of that
Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin；
everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87； excluding
slavery from that vast extent of country。
I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the
United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was
made by the Congress of the Confederation； and one of the first Acts
of Congress itself； under the new Constitution itself； was to give
force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands
of the new officers under the Constitution； in the place of the old
ones； who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the
Government from the Confederation to the Constitution。 Not only so；
but I believe Indiana once or twice； if not Ohio； petitioned the
General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and
allowing them to have slaves。 A report made by Mr。 Randolph； of
Virginia； himself a slaveholder； was directly against it； and the
action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of
'87。
This period of history； which I have run over briefly； is； I presume；
as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history
of our country。 I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar
with that part of history as I am； and I only mention it to recall
your attention to it at this time。 And hence I ask how extraordinary
a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor
of the Senate of the United States； who is now in his third term； and
who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his
own hands； pretending to give a truthful and accurate history o the
slavery question in this country； should so entirely ignore the whole
of that portion of our historythe most important of all。 Is it not
a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for
any confidence in his statements who sets out as he does with
portions of history； calling upon the people to believe that it is a
true and fair representation； when the leading part and controlling
feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed？
But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this
most remarkable essay。 His proposition is to establish that the
leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of
nonintervention by the government in the question of slavery in the
Territories； while history shows that they decided； i