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！
deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution。
But we are proposing no such thing。
When you make these declarations； you have a specific and well…
understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to
take slaves into the Federal Territories； and to hold them there as
property。 But no such right is specifically written in the
Constitution。 That instrument is literally silent about any such
right。 We； on the contrary； deny that such a right has any existence
in the Constitution； even by implication。
Your purpose； then； plainly stated； is that you will destroy the
Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please on all points in dispute between you and
us。 You will rule or ruin； in all events。
This； plainly stated； is your language。 Perhaps you will say the
Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in
your favor。 Not quite so。 But； waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision； the court have decided the question for
you in a sort of way。 The court have substantially said it is your
constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories； and
to hold them there as property。 When I say； the decision was made in
a sort of way； I mean it was made in a divided court； by a bare
majority of the judges； and they not quite agreeing with one another
in the reasons for making it； that it is so made as that its avowed
supporters disagree with one another about its meaning； and that it
was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of factthe statement in
the opinion that 〃the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution。〃
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of
property in a slave is not 〃distinctly and expressly affirmed〃 in it。
Bear in mind； the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that
such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution； but they pledge
their veracity that it is 〃distinctly and expressly〃 affirmed there…
…〃distinctly；〃 that is； not mingled with anything else； 〃expressly；〃
that is； in words meaning just that； without the aid of any
inference； and susceptible of no other meaning。
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication； it would be open to others
to show that neither the word 〃slave〃 nor 〃slavery〃 is to be found in
the Constitution； nor the word 〃property〃 even； in any connection
with language alluding to the things slave or slavery； and that
wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to； he is called a
〃person〃； and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is
alluded to； it is spoken of as 〃service or labor which may be due；〃
as a debt payable in service or labor。 Also； it would be open to
show； by contemporaneous history； that this mode of alluding to
slaves and slavery； instead of speaking of them； was employed on
purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in man。
To show all this； is easy and certain。
When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their
notice； is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement； and reconsider the conclusion based upon it？
And then it is to be remembered that 〃our fathers； who framed the
Government under which we live〃；the men who made the Constitution
decided this same constitutional question in our favor； long ago；
decided it without division among themselves； when making the
decision； without division among themselves about the meaning of it
after it was made； and； so far as any evidence is left； without
basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts。
Under all these circumstances； do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as
yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule
of political action？ But you will not abide the election of a
Republican President！ In that supposed event； you say； you will
destroy the Union；； and then； you say； the great crime of having
destroyed it will be upon us！ That is cool。 A highwayman holds a
pistol to my ear； and mutters through his teeth； 〃stand and deliver；
or I shall kill you； and then you'll be a murderer！〃
To be sure； what the robber demanded of me…my money was my own； and I
had a clear right to keep it； but it was no more my own than my vote
is my own； and the threat of death to me； to extort my money； and the
threat of destruction to the Union； to extort my vote； can scarcely
be distinguished in principle。
A few words now to Republicans： It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one
with another。 Let us Republicans do our part to have it so。 Even
though much provoked； let us do nothing through passion and ill
temper。 Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen
to us； let us calmly consider their demands； and yield to them if； in
our deliberate view of our duty； we possibly can。 Judging by all
they say and do； and by the subject and nature of their controversy
with us； let us determine； if we can； what will satisfy them。
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally
surrendered to them？ We know they will not。 In all their present
complaints against us； the Territories are scarcely mentioned。
Invasions and insurrections are the rage now。 Will it satisfy them
if； in the future； we have nothing to do with invasions and；
insurrections？ We know it will not。 We so know because we know we
never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections； and yet
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the
denunciation。
The question recurs； what will satisfy them？ Simply this： We must
not only let them alone； but we must； somehow； convince them that we
do let them alone。 This； we know by experience； is no easy task。
We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of
our organization； but with no success。 In all our platforms and
speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone；
but this has had no tendency to convince them。 Alike unavailing to
convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us
in any attempt to disturb them。
These natural and apparently adequate means all failing； what will
convince them？ This； and this only： cease to call slavery wrong； and
join them in calling it right。 And this must be done thoroughly
done in acts as well as in words。 Silence will not be toleratedwe
must place ourselves avowedly with them。 Senator Douglas's new
sedition law must be enacted and enforced； suppressing all
declarations that slavery is wrong； whether made in politics； in
presses； in pulpits； or in private。 We must arrest and return their
fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure。 We must pull down our free
State constitutions。 The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from
all taint of opposition to slavery； before they will cease to believe
that all their troubles proceed from us。
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way。
Most of them would probably say to us； 〃Let us alone； do nothing to
us； and say what you please about slavery。〃 But we do let them alone
have never disturbed themso that after all it is what we say which
dissatisfies them。 They will continue to accuse us of doing； until
we cease saying。
I am also aware they have not as yet； in terms； demanded the
overthrow of our free State constitutions。 Yet those constitutions
declare the wrong of slavery； with more solemn emphasis than do all
other sayings against it； and when all these other sayings shall have
been silenced； the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded；
and nothing be left to resist the demand。 It is nothing to the
contrary