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！
nonintervention by the government in the question of slavery in the
Territories； while history shows that they decided； in the cases
actually brought before them； in exactly the contrary way； and he
knows it。 Not only did they so decide at that time； but they stuck
to it during sixty years； through thick and thin； as long as there
was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political
action。 Through their whole course； from first to last； they clung
to freedom。 And now he asks the community to believe that the men of
the Revolution were in favor of his great principle； when we have the
naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject
matter of his principle； and utterly repudiated his principle； acting
upon a precisely contrary ground。 It is as impudent and absurd as if
a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them
to convict A as the murderer of B； while B was walking alive before
them。
I say； again； if judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution
acted upon principles by which； to be consistent with themselves；
they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty； then； upon a
consideration of his own argument； he had a right to make ；you
believe that they understood the principles of government； but
misapplied them； that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the
just application of this principle。 He has a right to try to
persuade you that he understands their principles better than they
did； and； therefore； he will apply them now； not as they did； but as
they ought to have done。 He has a right to go before the community
and try to convince them of this； but he has no right to attempt to
impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of
his great principle。 There are two ways of establishing a
proposition。 One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason； and the
other is； to show that great men in former times have thought so and
so； and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority。 Now； if
Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular
sovereignty；the right of one man to make a slave of another；
without any right in that other or any one else to object；…
…demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions；there is no
objection。 But when he comes forward； seeking to carry a principle
by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly
repudiate that principle； I ask that he shall not be permitted to do
it。
I see； in the judge's speech here； a short sentence in these words：
〃Our fathers； when they formed this government under which we live；
understood this question just as well； and even better than； we do
now。〃 That is true； I stick to that。 I will stand by Judge Douglas
in that to the bitter end。 And now； Judge Douglas； come and stand by
me； and truthfully show how they acted； understanding it better than
we do。 All I ask of you； Judge Douglas； is to stick to the
proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject
better than we do now； and with that better understanding they acted
better than you are trying to act now。
I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision； as
dealt with by Judge Douglas。 In that 〃memorable debate〃 between
Judge Douglas and myself； last year； the judge thought fit to
commence a process of catechising me； and at Freeport I answered his
questions； and propounded some to him。 Among others propounded to
him was one that I have here now。 The substance； as I remember it；
is； 〃Can the people of a United States Territory； under the Dred
Scott decision； in any lawful way； against the wish of any citizen of
the United States； exclude slavery from its limits； prior to the
formation of a State constitution？〃 He answered that they could
lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories；
notwithstanding the Dred Scot decision。 There was something about
that answer that has probably been a trouble to the judge ever since。
The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United
States a right to carry his slaves into the United States
Territories。 And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the
decision was right； and saying； too； that the people of the Territory
could lawfully drive slavery out again。 When all the trash； the
words； the collateral matter； was cleared away from it； all the chaff
was fanned out of it； it was a bare absurdity；no less than that a
thing may be lawfully driven away from where it has a lawful right to
be。 Clear it of all the verbiage； and that is the naked truth of his
proposition；that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place
where it has a lawful right to stay。 Well； it was because the judge
could n't help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it；
and what I want to ask your especial attention to； just now； is to
remind you； if you have not noticed the fact； that the judge does not
any longer say that the people can exclude slavery。 He does not say
so in the copyright essay； he did not say so in the speech that he
made here； and； so far as I know； since his re…election to the Senate
he has never said； as he did at Freeport； that the people of the
Territories can exclude slavery。 He desires that you； who wish the
Territories to remain free； should believe that he stands by that
position； but he does not say it himself。 He escapes to some extent
the absurd position I have stated； by changing his language entirely。
What he says now is something different in language； and we will
consider whether it is not different in sense too。 It is now that
the Dred Scott decision； or rather the Constitution under that
decision； does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the
power of the people of the Territories to control it as other
property。 He does not say the people can drive it out； but they can
control it as other property。 The language is different； we should
consider whether the sense is different。 Driving a horse out of this
lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about； it is putting
him on the other side of the fence。 Or it might be a sort of
exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the
worms devour him； but neither of these things is the same as
〃controlling him as other property。〃 That would be to feed him； to
pamper him； to ride him； to use and abuse him； to make the most money
out of him； 〃as other property〃； but； please you； what do the men who
are in favor of slavery want more than this？ What do they really
want； other than that slavery； being in the Territories； shall be
controlled as other property？ If they want anything else； I do not
comprehend it。 I ask your attention to this； first； for the purpose
of pointing out the change of ground the judge has made； and； in the
second place； the importance of the change；that that change is not
such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the
power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all。 I know the
judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as
other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to
death； as you might； in the case of a horse； perhaps； feed him so
lightly and ride him so much that he would die。 But when you come to
legislative control； there is something more to be attended to。 I
have no doubt； myself； that if the Territories should undertake to
control slave property as other property that is； control it in such
a way that it would be the most valuable as property； and make it
bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as property； really
deal with it as property；the Supreme Court of the United States
will say； 〃God speed you； and amen。〃 But I undertake to give the
opinion； at least； that if the Territories attempt by any direct
legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory； or
to decide that his slave is free because of his being tak