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！
them； as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want
them。 I ask any man； dealing honestly with himself； to point out a
distinction。
I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which； without
stating that to be the object； he doubtless endeavors to make a
distinction between the two。 He says he is unalterably opposed to
the repeal of the laws against the African slave trade。 And why？ He
then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his popular
sovereignty in the Territories。 What is that reason？ 〃The abolition
of the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitution！〃 I
deny it。 There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of
the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitution。 No man
can put his finger on anything in the Constitution； or on the line of
history； which shows it。 It is a mere barren assertion； made simply
for the purpose of getting up a distinction between the revival of
the African slave trade and his 〃great principle。〃
At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted； it was
expected that the slave trade would be abolished。 I should assert and
insist upon that； if judge Douglas denied it。 But I know that it was
equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories；
and I can show by history that in regard to these two things public
opinion was exactly alike； while in regard to positive action； there
was more done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery
than was ever done to abolish the foreign slave trade。 Lest I be
misunderstood； I say again that at the time of the formation of the
Constitution； public expectation was that the slave trade would be
abolished； but no more so than the spread of slavery in the
Territories should be restrained。 They stand alike； except that in
the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by public opinion； showing
that it was more committed against the spread of slavery in the
Territories than against the foreign slave trade。
Compromise！ What word of compromise was there about it？ Why； the
public sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade；
but there was at the time a very great commercial interest involved
in it； and extensive capital in that branch of trade。 There were
doubtless the incipient stages of improvement in the South in the way
of farming； dependent on the slave trade； and they made a proposition
to Congress to abolish the trade after allowing it twenty years；a
sufficient time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be
transferred to other channel。 They made no provision that it should
be abolished in twenty years； I do not doubt that they expected it
would be； but they made no bargain about it。 The public sentiment
left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away。 I
repeat； there is nothing in the history of those times in favor of
that matter being a compromise of the constitution。 It was the
public expectation at the time； manifested in a thousand ways； that
the spread of slavery should also be restricted。
Then I say； if this principle is established； that there is no wrong
in slavery； and whoever wants it has a right to have it； is a matter
of dollars and cents； a sort of question as to how they shall deal
with brutes； that between us and the negro here there is no sort of
question； but that at the South the question is between the negro and
the crocodile； that is all； it is a mere matter of policy； there is a
perfect right； according to interest； to do just as you please；when
this is done； where this doctrine prevails； the miners and sappers
will have formed public opinion for the slave trade。 They will be
ready for Jeff。 Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company
to sound the bugle for the revival of the slave trade； for the second
Dred Scott decision； for the flood of slavery to be poured over the
free States； while we shall be here tied down and helpless and run
over like sheep。
It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea to say to men who
want to adhere to the Democratic party； who have always belonged to
that party； and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to
it； but nevertheless hate slavery； that Douglas's popular sovereignty
is as good a way as any to oppose slavery。 They allow themselves to
be persuaded easily； in accordance with their previous dispositions；
into this belief； that it is about as good a way of opposing slavery
as any； and we can do that without straining our old party ties or
breaking up old political associations。 We can do so without being
called negro…worshipers。 We can do that without being subjected to
the jibes and sneers that are so readily thrown out in place of
argument where no arguement can be found。 So let us stick to this
popular sovereignty；this insidious popular sovereignty。
Now let me call your attention to one thing that has really happened；
which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion；
this course of preparation for the revival of the slave trade； for
the Territorial slave code； and the new Dred Scott decision that is
to carry slavery into the Free States。 Did you ever； five years ago；
hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in
the Declaration of National Independence； that it does not mean
negroes at all； and when 〃all men〃 were spoken of； negroes were not
included？
I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon
paper by any living being anywhere。 I have been unable at any time
to find a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known
of anybody saying so five years ago。 But last year there was not a
Douglas popular sovereign in Illinois who did not say it。 Is there
one in Ohio but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of
Independence did not mean negroes at all？ I do not know how this is；
I have not been here much； but I presume you are very much alike
everywhere。 Then I suppose that all now express the belief that the
Declaration of Independence never did mean negroes。 I call upon one
of them to say that he said it five years ago。
If you think that now； and did not think it then； the next thing that
strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you；…
…and a very significant change it is； being no less than changing the
negro； in your estimation； from the rank of a man to that of a brute。
They are taking him down and placing him； when spoken of； among
reptiles and crocodiles； as Judge Douglas himself expresses it。
Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change？
Public opinion in this country is everything。 In a nation like ours；
this popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already
wrought a change in the public mind to the extent I have stated。
There is no man in this crowd who can contradict it。
Now； if you are opposed to slavery honestly； as much as anybody； I
ask you to note that fact； and the like of which is to follow； to be
plastered on； layer after layer； until very soon you are prepared to
deal with the negro every where as with the brute。 If public
sentiment has not been debauched already to this point； a new turn of
the screw in that direction is all that is wanting； and this is
constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious popular
sovereignty。 You need but one or two turns further； until your
minds； now ripening under these teachings； will be ready for all
these things； and you will receive and support； or submit to； the
slave trade； revived with all its horrors； a slave code enforced in
our Territories； and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up
into the very heart of the free North。 This； I must say； is but
carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr。 Clay；many；
many years ago；I believe more than thirty years； when he told an
audience that if they would repress all tendencies to