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！
legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory； or
to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there；
or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there； the
Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation
unconstitutional； as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the
Dred Scott Supreme Court is。 The first two things they have already
decided； except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between
the words 〃dicta〃 and 〃decision。〃 They have already decided a negro
cannot be made free by Territorial legislation。
What is the Dred Scott decision？ Judge Douglas labors to show that
it is one thing； while I think it is altogether different。 It is a
long opinion； but it is all embodied in this short statement： 〃The
Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man
of his property； without due process of law； the right of property in
slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution：
therefore； if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is
no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory；
that is depriving him of his property without due process of law； and
is unconstitutional。〃 There is the whole Dred Scott decision。 They
add that if Congress cannot do so itself； Congress cannot confer any
power to do so； and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature
to do either of these things is absolutely decided against。 It is a
foregone conclusion by that court。
Now； as to this indirect mode by 〃unfriendly legislation；〃 all
lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot
be tolerated for a moment； because a legislature cannot indirectly do
that which it cannot accomplish directly。 Then I say any legislation
to control this property； as property； for its benefit as property；
would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court； and fully
sustained； but any legislation driving slave property out； or
destroying it as property； directly or indirectly； will most
assuredly； by that court； be held unconstitutional。
Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the
Territories； beyond the power of the people of the Territories to
control it as other property； then it follows logically that every
one who swears to support the Constitution of the United States must
give that support to that property which it needs。 And； if the
Constitution carries slavery into the Territories； beyond the power
of the people； to control it as other property； then it also carries
it into the States； because the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land。 Now； gentlemen； if it were not for my excessive modesty； I
would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year
ago。 This argument is here in print； and if it were not for my
modesty； as I said； I might call your attention to it。 If you read
it； you will find that I not only made that argument； but made it
better than he has made it since。
There is； however； this difference： I say now； and said then； there
is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is
the right of the slave holder to take his slave and hold him in the
Territory； and saying this； judge Douglas himself admits the
conclusion。 He says if that is so； this consequence will follow； and
because this consequence would follow； his argument is； the decision
cannot； therefore； be that way；〃 that would spoil my popular
sovereignty； and it cannot be possible that this great principle has
been squelched out in this extraordinary way。 It might be； if it
were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug。〃
Another feature of the judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is；
an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations
of negatives； that the Constitution does not affirm anything as
expounded by the Dred Scott decision； but it only declares a want of
power a total absence of power； in reference to the Territories。 It
seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result
in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do
anything in relation to this matter in the Territories。 I know the
opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power；
but that is； unfortunately； not all it states： for the judges add
that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly
affirmed in the Constitution。 It does not stop at saying that the
right of property in a slave is recognized in the Constitution； is
declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution； but says it is
affirmed in the Constitution。 Its language is equivalent to saying
that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot be
detached without breaking the Constitution itself。 In a word； it is
part of the Constitution。
Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that
decision to be altogether negative； when the express language at the
vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution。
I think myself； and I repeat it here； that this decision does not
merely carry slavery into the Territories； but by its logical
conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live。 One
provision of that Constitution is； that it shall be the supreme law
of the land；I do not quote the language；any constitution or law
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding。 This Dred Scott
decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in
that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land； any State
constitution or law notwithstanding。 Then I say that to destroy a
thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law
of the land； even by a State constitution or law； is a violation of
that supreme law； and there is no escape from it。 In my judgment
there is no avoiding that result； save that the American people shall
see that constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is
construed in that decision。 They must take care that it is more
faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded。
I must hasten to a conclusion。 Near the beginning of my remarks I
said that this insidious Douglas popular sovereignty is the measure
that now threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent
slavery from being nationalized in the United States。 I propose to
ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in
affirmance of that statement。 Take it just as it stands； and apply
it as a principle； extend and apply that principle elsewhere； and
consider where it will lead you。 I now put this proposition； that
Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty applied will reopen the African
slave trade； and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in
which you can turn the subject or look at it。
The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right； by
his principle； to have slaves； if they want them。 Then I say that
the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa； if they
want them； and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction
between the two things；to show that the one is either more wicked
or more unlawful； to show； on original principles； that one is better
or worse than the other； or to show； by the Constitution； that one
differs a whit from the other。 He will tell me； doubtless； that
there is no constitutional provision against people taking slaves
into the new Territories； and I tell him that there is equally no
constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa。 He will
tell you that a people； in the exercise of popular sovereignty； ought
to do as they please about that thing； and have slaves if they want
them； and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled
to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa； if they want
them； as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want
them。 I ask