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！
whip foreign nations whenever； they interfere with us。
Voice： I only asked for information。 I am a Republican myself。
Mr。 LINCOLN： You and I will be on the best terms in the world； but
I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press。
I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty； establishing his sacred
right in the people； if you please； if carried to its logical
conclusion gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States
or the Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy
them cheapest； and if any man can show a distinction； I should like
to hear him try it。 If any man can show how the people of Kansas
have a better right to slaves； because they want them； than the
people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa； I want him to do it。
I think it cannot be done。 If it is 〃popular sovereignty〃 for the
people to have slaves because they want them； it is popular
sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to do
so。
I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort； not seeming to
notice that he had a different theory； has made an effort to get rid
of that。 He has written a letter； addressed to somebody； I believe；
who resides in Iowa； declaring his opposition to the repeal of the
laws that prohibit the Africa slave trade。 He bases his opposition
to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of
the compromises of the Constitution of the United States。 Now； it
would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends
turn； to the Constitution of the United States and point out that
compromise； to show where there is any compromise in the
Constitution； or provision in the Constitution； express or implied；
by which the administrators of that Constitution are under any
obligation to repeal the African slave trade。 I know； or at least I
think I know； that the framers of that Constitution did expect the
African slave trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years； to
which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended。
there is abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of
the Constitution expected it to be abolished。 But while they so
expected； they gave nothing for that expectation； and they put no
provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished。
The migration or importation of such persons as the States shall see
fit to admit shall not be prohibited； but a certain tax might be
levied upon such importation。 But what was to be done after that
time？ The Constitution is as silent about that as it is silent；
personally； about myself。 There is absolutely nothing in it about
that subject； there is only the expectation of the framers of the
Constitution that the slave trade would be abolished at the end of
that time； and they expected it would be abolished； owing to public
sentiment； before that time； and the put that provision in； in order
that it should not be abolished before that time； for reasons which I
suppose they thought to be sound ones； but which I will not now try
to enumerate before you。
But while； they expected the slave trade would be abolished at that
time； they expected that the spread of slavery into the new
Territories should also be restricted。 It is as easy to prove that
the framers of the Constitution of the United States expected that
slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories；
as it is to prove that it was expected that the slave trade should be
abolished。 Both these things were expected。 One was no more
expected than the other； and one was no more a compromise of the
Constitution than the other。 There was nothing said in the
Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territory。
I grant that； but there was something very important said about it by
the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of
'87； through the influence of which you here in Ohio； our neighbors
in Indiana； we in Illinois； our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin；
are happy； prosperous； teeming millions of free men。 That generation
of men； though not to the full extent members of the convention that
framed the Constitution； were to some extent members of that
convention； holding seats at the same time in one body and the other；
so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects； the
strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the
restriction of slavery from the new Territories。
But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of
those laws because； in his view； it is a compromise of the
Constitution。 You Kentuckians； no doubt； are somewhat offended with
that。 You ought not to be！ You ought to be patient！ You ought to
know that if he said less than that； he would lose the power of
〃lugging〃 the Northern States to your support。 Really； what you
would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve
you。 And you ought to remember how long； by precedent； Judge Douglas
holds himself obliged to stick by compromises。 You ought to remember
that by the time you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate
measures for the revival of the African slave trade； that sufficient
time will have arrived； by precedent； for Judge Douglas to break
through； that compromise。 He says now nothing more strong than he
said in 1849 when he declared in favor of Missouri Compromise；and
precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise
to be a sacred thing； which 〃no ruthless hand would ever daze to
touch；〃 he himself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy
it。 By a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more
until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of
the Compromise abolishing the slave trade。 Precisely as soon as you
are ready to have his services in that direction； by fair
calculation； you may be sure of having them。
But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt； or discredit；
that he； last year； said the people of Territories can； in spite of
the Dred Scott decision； exclude your slaves from those Territories；
that he declared； by 〃unfriendly legislation〃 the extension of your
property into the new Territories may be cut off； in the teeth of the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States。
He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August； 1858。 He
said that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery； in so
many words： You ought； however； to bear in mind that he has never
said it since。 You may hunt in every speech that he has since made；
and he has never used that expression once。 He has never seemed to
notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did
then； but by some sort of accident； he has always really stated it
differently。 He has always since then declared that 〃the
Constitution does not carry slavery into the Territories of the
United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it；
as other property。〃 Now； there is a difference in the language used
upon that former occasion and in this latter day。 There may or may
not be a difference in the meaning； but it is worth while considering
whether there is not also a difference in meaning。
What is it to exclude？ Why； it is to drive it out。 It is in some
way to put it out of the Territory。 It is to force it across the
line； or change its character so that； as property； it is out of
existence。 But what is the controlling of it 〃as other property〃？
Is controlling it as other property the same thing as destroying it；
or driving it away？ I should think not。 I should think the
controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in
Kentucky should want。 I understand the controlling of property means
the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it。 While I
have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say 〃God
speed〃 to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus
control slave property； they would sing quite a different tune if； by
the pretence of controlling it； they were to undertake to pass laws
which virtually excluded it；and that upon a very well known
principle to all lawyers； that what a Legislature cannot directly do；
it cannot do by indirection； that as the Legislature has not the
power to drive slaves out； they have no power； by indirection； by
tax； or by imposing burdens in any way on that property； to effect
the same end； and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred
Scott court unconstitutional。
Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they
can exclude it； because we have seen that that proposition amounts to
nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully
drive out that which has a lawful right to remain。 He admitted at
first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories
under