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！
the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization。 I say
〃chief purpose〃 of the Republican organization； for it is certainly
true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the
Republicans； they will have to attend to all the other matters of
national house…keeping； as well as this。 The chief and real purpose
of the Republican party is eminently conservative。 It proposes
nothing save and except to restore this government to its original
tone in regard to this element of slavery； and there to maintain it；
looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the
original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked
forward to。
The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just
now the revival of the African slave trade； or the passage of a
Congressional slave code； or the declaring of a second Dred Scott
decision； making slavery lawful in all the States。 These are not
pressing us just now。 They are not quite ready yet。 The authors of
these measures know that we are too strong for them； but they will be
upon us in due time； and we will be grappling with them hand to hand；
if they are not now headed off。 They are not now the chief danger to
the purpose of the Republican organization； but the most imminent
danger that now threatens that purpose is that insidious Douglas
popular sovereignty。 This is the miner and sapper。 While it does
not propose to revive the African slave trade； nor to pass a slave
code； nor to make a second Dred Scott decision； it is preparing us
for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they
shall be ready to come on； and the word of command for them to
advance shall be given。 I say this 〃Douglas popular sovereignty〃；
for there is a broad distinction； as I now understand it； between
that article and a genuine popular sovereignty。
I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty。 I think a
definition of 〃genuine 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 to 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。 I understand that this
government of the United States； under which we live； is based upon
this principle； and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I have
any war to make upon that principle。
Now； what is judge Douglas's popular sovereignty？ It is； as a
principle； no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of
another man neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to
object。 Applied in government； as he seeks to apply it； 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 afterwards to inhabit that
Territory； or the other members of the families 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。
He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty。 His
explanations explanatory of explanations explained are interminable。
The most lengthy； and； as I suppose； the most maturely considered of
this long series of explanations is his great essay in Harper's
Magazine。 I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough
investigation of his argument as there made and presented。 I will
nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time here in drawing your
attention to certain points in it。 Such of you as may have read this
document will have perceived that the judge early in the document
quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party； without
naming them； but who can readily be recognized as being Governor
Seward of New York and myself。 It is true that exactly fifteen
months ago this day； I believe； I for the first time expressed a
sentiment upon this subject； and in such a manner that it should get
into print； that the public might see it beyond the circle of my
hearers； and my expression of it at that time is the quotation that
Judge Douglas makes。 He has not made the quotation with accuracy； but
justice to him requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate
not to change the sense。
The sense of that quotation condensed is this： that this slavery
element is a durable element of discord among us； and that we shall
probably not have perfect peace in this country with it until it
either masters the free principle in our government； or is so far
mastered by the free principle as for the public mind to rest in the
belief that it is going to its end。 This sentiment； which I now
express in this way； was； at no great distance of time； perhaps in
different language； and in connection with some collateral ideas；
expressed by Governor Seward。 Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed
by the expression of that sentiment that he has constantly； I
believe； in almost all his speeches since it was uttered； been
referring to it。 I find he alluded to it in his speech here； as well
as in the copyright essay。 I do not now enter upon this for the
purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in
the expression of that sentiment。 In other words； I shall not stop
to say all that might properly be said upon this point； but I only
ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two points
upon it。
If you will read the copyright essay； you will discover that judge
Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and
the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in
1699； and continued from that time until the Revolution； and； while
he did not say so； we all know that it has continued with more or
less violence ever since the Revolution。
Then we need not appeal to history； to the declarations of the
framers of the government； but we know from judge Douglas himself
that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white people
of this country as far back as 1699； or one hundred and sixty years
ago； or five generations of men；counting thirty years to a
generation。 Now； it would seem to me that it might have occurred to
Judge Douglas； or anybody who had turned his attention to these
facts； that there was something in the nature of that thing； slavery；
somewhat durable for mischief and discord。
There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter；
before I leave it。 From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820
is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace
upon this question；the precise period of time when we came nearer
to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one
hundred and sixty years in which he says it began； or of the eighty
years of our own Constitution。 Then it would be worth our while to
stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to
having peace then than at any other time。 This was the precise
period of time in which our fathers adopted； and during which they
followed； a policy restricting the spread of slavery； and the whole
Union was acquiescing in it。 The whole country looked forward to the
ultimate extinction of the institution。 It was when a policy had
been adopted； and was prevailing； which led all just and right…minded
men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end； and that
they might be quiet about it； watching it as it expired。 I think
Judge Dougl