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！
than a hundred； if not as much as two hundred years；at Kaskaskia；
in Illinois； and at St。 Genevieve； or Cape Girardeau； perhaps； in
Missouri。 The number of slaves was not very great； but there was
about the same number in each place。 They were there when we
acquired the Territory。 There was no effort made to break up the
relation of master and slave； and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not
so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois； nor did the
Ordinance apply to Missouri at all。
What I want to ask your attention to； at this point； is that Illinois
and Missouri came into the Union about the same time； Illinois in the
latter part of 1818； and Missouri； after a struggle； I believe
sometime in 1820。 They had been filling up with American people
about the same period of time； their progress enabling them to come
into the Union about the same time。 At the end of that ten years； in
which they had been so preparing （for it was about that period of
time）； the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased； while
in Missouri； beginning with very few； at the end of that ten years
there were about ten thousand。 This being so； and it being
remembered that Missouri and Illinois are； to a certain extent； in
the same parallel of latitude； that the northern half of Missouri and
the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude；
so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the
other； and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as
bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the
other；there being none of those natural causes to produce a
difference in filling them； and yet there being a broad difference to
their filling up； we are led again to inquire what was the cause of
that difference。
It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep
that country from filling up with slaves； while in Illinois there was
the Ordinance of The Ordinance being there； slavery decreased during
that ten years； the Ordinance not being in the other； it increased
from a few to ten thousand。 Can anybody doubt the reason of the
difference？
I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge
Douglas's proposition； that the Ordinance of '87； or the national
restriction of slavery； never had a tendency to make a free State； is
a fallacy；a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth
about it。
Douglas sometimes says that all the States （and it is part of this
same proposition I have been discussing） that have become free have
become so upon his 〃great principle〃； that the State of Illinois
itself came into the Union as a slave State； and that the people；
upon the 〃great principle〃 of popular sovereignty； have since made it
a free State。 Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts
there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union
as a slave State。
I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves
there。 They numbered； I think； one or two hundred。 Besides that；
there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons。
Under that law； in violation of the Ordinance of '87； but without any
enforcement of the Ordinance to overthrow the system； there had been
a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons。 Owing to
this； the clause for the prohibition of slavery was slightly
modified。 Instead of running like yours； that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude； except for crime； of which the party shall
have been duly convicted； should exist in the State； they said that
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be
introduced； and that the children of indentured servants should be
born free； and nothing was said about the few old French slaves。 Out
of this fact； that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified
because of the actual presence of it； Douglas asserts again and again
that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State。 How far the
facts sustain the conclusion that he draws； it is for intelligent and
impartial men to decide。 I leave it with you； with these remarks；
worthy of being remembered； that that little thing； those few
indentured servants being there； was of itself sufficient to modify a
constitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free
constitution； showing the power of the actual presence of the
institution of slavery to prevent any people； however anxious to make
a free State； from making it perfectly so。
I have been detaining you longer； perhaps； than I ought to do。
I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I
could talk a while。 ＇Cries of 〃Go on；〃 and 〃Give us it。〃＇ It is this；
then： Douglas's Popular sovereignty； as a principle； is simply this：
If one man chooses to make a slave of another man； neither that man
nor anybody else has a right to object。 Apply it to government； as
he seeks to apply it； and it is this： If； in a new Territory into
which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making
their homes； they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits；
or to establish it there； however one or the other may affect the
persons to be enslaved； or the infinitely greater number of persons
who are afterward to inhabit that Territory； or the other members of
the family of communities of which they are but an incipient member；
or the general head of the family of States as parent of all； however
their action may affect one or the other of these； there is no power
or right to interfere。 That is Douglas's popular sovereignty
applied。 Now； I think that there is a real popular sovereignty in
the world。 I think the definition of popular sovereignty； in the
abstract； would be about this： that each man shall do precisely as he
pleases with himself； and with all those things which exclusively
concern him。 Applied in government； this principle would be that a
general government shall do all those things which pertain to it； and
all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in
respect to those matters which exclusively concern them。
Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must
decide that question for themselves； and yet they are not fit to
decide who shall be their governor； judge； or secretary； or who shall
be any of their officers。 These are vast national matters in his
estimation； but the little matter in his estimation is that of
planting slavery there。 That is purely of local interest； which
nobody should be allowed to say a word about。
Labor is the great source from which nearly all； if not all； human
comforts and necessities are drawn。 There is a difference in opinion
about the elements of labor in society。 Some men assume that there
is necessary connection between capital and labor； and that
connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the community。
They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work。
They begin next to consider what is the best way。 They say there are
but two ways： one is to hire men； and to allure them to labor by
their consent； the other is to buy the men； and drive them； to it；
and that is slavery。 Having assumed that； they proceed to discuss
the question of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the
condition of slaves or of hired laborers； and they usually decide
that they are better off in the condition of slaves。
In the first place； I say that the whole thing is a mistake。 That
there is a certain relation between capital and labor； I admit。 That
it does exist； and rightfully exists； I think is true。 That men who
are industrious； and sober； and honest in the pursuit of their own
interests should after a while accumulate capital； and after that
should be allowed to enjoy it in peace； and also； if they should
choose； when they have accumulated it； to use it to save themselves
from actual labor； and h