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！
Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States should
themselves set on foot an effort for emancipation； you would wish
them success； and bid them God…speed。 Let us test that： In 1858 the
emancipation party of Missouri； with Frank Blair at their head； tried
to get up a movement for that purpose； and having started a party
contested the State。 Blair was beaten； apparently if not truly； and
when the news came to Connecticut； you； who knew that Frank Blair was
taking hold of this thing by the right end； and doing the only thing
that you say can properly be done to remove this wrongdid you bow
your heads in sorrow because of that defeat？ Do you； any of you； know
one single Democrat that showed sorrow over that result？ Not one！ On
the contrary every man threw up his hat； and hallooed at the top of
his lungs； 〃Hooray for Democracy！〃
Now； gentlemen； the Republicans desire to place this great question
of slavery on the very basis on which our fathers placed it； and no
other。 It is easy to demonstrate that 〃our fathers； who framed this
Government under which we live；〃 looked on slavery as wrong； and so
framed it and everything about it as to square with the idea that it
was wrong； so far as the necessities arising from its existence
permitted。 In forming the Constitution they found the slave trade
existing； capital invested in it； fields depending upon it for labor；
and the whole system resting upon the importation of slave labor。
They therefore did not prohibit the slave trade at once； but they
gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years。 Why was this？ What
other foreign trade did they treat in that way？ Would they have done
this if they had not thought slavery wrong？
Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed the
Constitution； and afterwards adopted as their own the act by the
first Congress held under that Constitution； of which many of the
framers were members； that prohibited the spread of slavery into
Territories。 Thus the same men； the framers of the Constitution； cut
off the supply and prohibited the spread of slavery； and both acts
show conclusively that they considered that the thing was wrong。
If additional proof is wanted it can be found in the phraseology of
the Constitution。 When men are framing a supreme law and chart of
government； to secure blessings and prosperity to untold generations
yet to come； they use language as short and direct and plain as can
be found； to express their meaning In all matters but this of
slavery the framers of the Constitution used the very clearest；
shortest； and most direct language。 But the Constitution alludes to
slavery three times without mentioning it once The language used
becomes ambiguous； roundabout； and mystical。 They speak of the
〃immigration of persons；〃 and mean the importation of slaves； but do
not say so。 In establishing a basis of representation they say 〃all
other persons；〃 when they mean to say slaveswhy did they not use
the shortest phrase？ In providing for the return of fugitives they
say 〃persons held to service or labor。〃 If they had said slaves it
would have been plainer； and less liable to misconstruction。 Why did
n't they do it？ We cannot doubt that it was done on purpose。 Only
one reason is possible； and that is supplied us by one of the framers
of the Constitutionand it is not possible for man to conceive of
any otherthey expected and desired that the system would come to an
end； and meant that when it did； the Constitution should not show
that there ever had been a slave in this good free country of ours。
I will dwell on that no longer。 I see the signs of approaching
triumph of the Republicans in the bearing of their political
adversaries。 A great deal of their war with us nowadays is mere
bushwhacking。 At the battle of Waterloo； when Napoleon's cavalry had
charged again and again upon the unbroken squares of British
infantry； at last they were giving up the attempt； and going off in
disorder； when some of the officers in mere vexation and complete
despair fired their pistols at those solid squares。 The Democrats
are in that sort of extreme desperation； it is nothing else。 I will
take up a few of these arguments。
There is 〃the irrepressible conflict。〃 How they rail at Seward for
that saying！ They repeat it constantly； and； although the proof has
been thrust under their noses again and again that almost every good
man since the formation of our Government has uttered that same
sentiment； from General Washington； who 〃trusted that we should yet
have a confederacy of free States；〃 with Jefferson； Jay； Monroe； down
to the latest days； yet they refuse to notice that at all； and
persist in railing at Seward for saying it。 Even Roger A。 Pryor；
editor of the Richmond Enquirer； uttered the same sentiment in almost
the same language； and yet so little offence did it give the
Democrats that he was sent for to Washington to edit the Statesthe
Douglas organ therewhile Douglas goes into hydrophobia and spasms
of rage because Seward dared to repeat it。 This is what I call
bushwhacking； a sort of argument that they must know any child can
see through。
Another is John Brown： 〃You stir up insurrections； you invade the
South； John Brown！ Harper's Ferry！〃 Why； John Brown was not a
Republican！ You have never implicated a single Republican in that
Harper's Ferry enterprise。 We tell you that if any member of the
Republican party is guilty in that matter； you know it or you do not
know it。 If you do know it； you are inexcusable not to designate the
man and prove the fact。 If you do not know it； you are inexcusable
to assert it； and especially to persist in the assertion after you
have tried and failed to make the proof。 You need not be told that
persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is simply
malicious slander。 Some of you admit that no Republican designedly
aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair； but still insist that
our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results。 We
do not believe it。 We know we hold to no doctrines； and make no
declarations； which were not held to and made by our fathers who
framed the Government 'under which we live； and we cannot see how
declarations that were patriotic when they made them are villainous
when we make them。 You never dealt fairly by us in relation to that
affairand I will say frankly that I know of nothing in your
character that should lead us to suppose that you would。 You had
just been soundly thrashed in elections in several States； and others
were soon to come。 You rejoiced at the occasion； and only were
troubled that there were not three times as many killed in the
affair。 You were in evident glee； there was no sorrow for the killed
nor for the peace of Virginia disturbed； you were rejoicing that by
charging Republicans with this thing you might get an advantage of us
in New York； and the other States。 You pulled that string as tightly
as you could； but your very generous and worthy expectations were not
quite fulfilled。 Each Republican knew that the charge was a slander
as to himself at least； and was not inclined by it to cast his vote
in your favor。 It was mere bushwhacking； because you had nothing
else to do。 You are still on that track； and I say； go on！ If you
think you can slander a woman into loving you or a man into voting
for you； try it till you are satisfied！
Another specimen of this bushwhacking； that 〃shoe strike。〃 Now be it
understood that I do not pretend to know all about the matter。 I am
merely going to speculate a little about some of its phases。 And at
the outset； I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New
England under which laborers can strike when they want to； where they
are not obliged to work under all circumstances； and are not tied
down and obliged to labor whether you pay them or not！ I like the
system wh