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！
of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri； by which the
Missouri Compromise was established and slavery excluded from a
country half as large as the present United States。 All this is left
out of his history； and in nowise alluded to by him； so far as I can
remember； save once； when he makes a remark； that upon his principle
the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the
act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional。 All that
history has been left out。 But this part of the history of the
country was not made by the men of the Revolution。
There was another part of our political history； made by the very men
who were the actors in the Revolution； which has taken the name of
the Ordinance of '87。 Let me bring that history to your attention。
In 1784； I believe； this same Mr。 Jefferson drew up an ordinance for
the government of the country upon which we now stand； or； rather； a
frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country；
here in Ohio； our neighbors in Indiana； us who live in Illinois； our
neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan。 In that ordinance； drawn up not
only for the government of that Territory； but for the Territories
south of the Ohio River； Mr。 Jefferson expressly provided for the
prohibition of slavery。 Judge Douglas says； and perhaps is right；
that that provision was lost from that ordinance。 I believe that is
true。 When the vote was taken upon it； a majority of all present in
the Congress of the Confederation voted for it； but there were so
many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear
majority necessary； and it was lost。 But three years after that； the
Congress of the Confederation were together again； and they adopted a
new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory； not
contemplating territory south of the river； for the States owning
that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General
Government； hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the
Government owned。 In fact； the provision excluding slavery was
inserted aside； passed unanimously； or at any rate it passed and
became a part of the law of the land。 Under that ordinance we live。
First here in Ohio you were a Territory； then an enabling act was
passed； authorizing you to form a constitution and State Government；
provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordinance of
'87。 When you framed your constitution and presented it for
admission； I think you will find the legislation upon the subject
will show that； whereas you had formed a constitution that was
republican； and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87； therefore
you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States。 The
same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana； and so
with Illinois； and the same substantially with Michigan and
Wisconsin。
Not only did that Ordinance prevail； but it was constantly looked to
whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State。
Congress always turned their attention to it； and in all their
movements upon this subject they traced their course by that
Ordinance of '87。 When they admitted new States； they advertised
them of this Ordinance； as a part of the legislation of the country。
They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 throughout
the history of this country。 Begin with the men of the Revolution；
and go down for sixty entire years； and until the last scrap of that
Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin；
everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87； excluding
slavery from that vast extent of country。
I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the
United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was
made by the Congress of the Confederation； and one of the first Acts
of Congress itself； under the new Constitution itself； was to give
force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands
of the new officers under the Constitution； in the place of the old
ones； who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the
Government from the Confederation to the Constitution。 Not only so；
but I believe Indiana once or twice； if not Ohio； petitioned the
General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and
allowing them to have slaves。 A report made by Mr。 Randolph； of
Virginia； himself a slaveholder； was directly against it； and the
action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of
'87。
This period of history； which I have run over briefly； is； I presume；
as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history
of our country。 I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar
with that part of history as I am； and I only mention it to recall
your attention to it at this time。 And hence I ask how extraordinary
a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor
of the Senate of the United States； who is now in his third term； and
who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his
own hands； pretending to give a truthful and accurate history o the
slavery question in this country； should so entirely ignore the whole
of that portion of our historythe most important of all。 Is it not
a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for
any confidence in his statements who sets out as he does with
portions of history； calling upon the people to believe that it is a
true and fair representation； when the leading part and controlling
feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed？
But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this
most remarkable essay。 His proposition is to establish that the
leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of
nonintervention by the government in the question of slavery in the
Territories； while history shows that they decided； in the cases
actually brought before them； in exactly the contrary way； and he
knows it。 Not only did they so decide at that time； but they stuck
to it during sixty years； through thick and thin； as long as there
was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political
action。 Through their whole course； from first to last； they clung
to freedom。 And now he asks the community to believe that the men of
the Revolution were in favor of his great principle； when we have the
naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject
matter of his principle； and utterly repudiated his principle； acting
upon a precisely contrary ground。 It is as impudent and absurd as if
a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them
to convict A as the murderer of B； while B was walking alive before
them。
I say； again； if judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution
acted upon principles by which； to be consistent with themselves；
they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty； then； upon a
consideration of his own argument； he had a right to make ；you
believe that they understood the principles of government； but
misapplied them； that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the
just application of this principle。 He has a right to try to
persuade you that he understands their principles better than they
did； and； therefore； he will apply them now； not as they did； but as
they ought to have done。 He has a right to go before the community
and try to convince them of this； but he has no right to attempt to
impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of
his great principle。 There are two ways of establishing a
proposition。 One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason； and the
other is； to show that great men in former times have thought so and
so； and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority。 Now； if
Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular
sovereignty；the right of one man to make a slave of another；
without any right in that other or any one else to object；…
…demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions；there is no
objection。 But when he comes forward； seeking to carry a principle
by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly
repudiate that principle； I ask that he shall not be permitted to do
it。
I see； in the judge's speech here； a short sentence in these words：
〃Our fathers； when they formed this government under which we live；
understood this question just as well； and even better than； we do
now。〃 That is true； I stick to that。 I will stand by Judge Douglas
in that to the bitter end。 And now； Judge Douglas； come and stand by
me； and truthfully show how they acted； understanding it better than
we do。 All I ask of you； Judge Douglas； is to stick to the
proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject
better than we do now； and with that better understanding