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！
nality of the Dred Scott decision and the exclusion of negroes from the Declaration of Independence were insisted on。 Much of the speech was devoted to the local and transient questions of Illinois politics。
Lincoln； replying to the charge that the slavery agitation was the result of the aggressive attitude of Northern Abolitionists； again insisted that the propagandists of slavery were the aggressors； having attempted to change it from a local and declining institution and spread it through all the Territories； removing it 〃from the basis on which the fathers left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization。〃 The agitation began with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise。
〃Who；〃 he asked； 〃did that？ Why； when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise； could you not have left it alone？〃
He quoted Douglas' speech in the Senate on June 9th； 1856； in which he had declared that 〃whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a Constitution or not； was a question to be decided by the Supreme Court。 * * * * When he says； after the Supreme Court has decided the question； that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever； he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court。 * * * the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false。 * * * Slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these police regulations。 * * * How came the Dred Scott decision to be made？ It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory； claiming his freedom because the act of Congress prohibited his being so held there。 Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there without police regulations？ * * * * This shows that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country； even against unfriendly legislation。 It takes not only law； but the enforcement of the law； to keep it out。 This is the history of this country upon the subject。 * * * The first thing a Senator does is swear to support the Constitution of the United States。 Suppose a Senator believes； as Douglas does； that the Constitution guarantees the right to hold slaves in a Territory。 How can he clear his oath unless he supports such legislation as is necessary to enable the people to enjoy their property？ Can you； if you swear to support the Constitution； and believe that the Constitution establishes a right； clear your oath without giving it support？ * * * * There can be nothing in the words； 'support the Constitution；' if you may run counter to it by refusing to support it。 * * * * And what I say here will hod with still more force against the Judge's doctrine of unfriendly legislation。 * * * Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution？ A Member of Congress swears to support the Constitution * * * and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection； can he clear his oath without giving that protection。 * * * If I acknowledge * * * that this （Dred Scott） decision properly construes the Constitution； I cannot conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature is needed。〃
He then stated his fifth interrogatory： If slave…holding citizens of the United States Territory should need and demand congressional legislation for the protection of their slave property in such Territory； would you as a Member of Congress； vote for or against such legislation？
Douglas in his reply took up Lincoln's rather evasive answer to his second interrogatory submitted at Ottawa。 〃Lincoln；〃 he said； 〃would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to vote on the question of the admission of slave States。 Why is he a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that position？ * * * * If Congress keeps out slavery by law while it is a Territory and then the people should have a fair chance and should adopt slavery； he supposes he would have to admit the State。 Suppose Congress should not keep slavery out during their territorial existence； then how would he vote when the people applied for admission with a slave Constitution？ That he does not answer； and that is the condition of every Territory we have now got。 His answer only applies to a given case which he knows does not exist in any Territory。 But Mr。 Lincoln does not want to be held responsible for the black Republican doctrine of no more slave States。 Why are men running for Congress in the northern Distracts and taking that Abolition platform for their guide when Mr。 Lincoln does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt？ His party in the northern part of the State hold to that Abolition platform； and if they do not in the south； they present the extra…ordinary spectacle of 'a house divided against itself' and hence 'cannot stand。'〃
In answer to Lincoln's last question； he said： 〃It is a fundamental article of the Democratic creed that there should be non…interference or non…intervention of Congress with slavery in the States or Territories。 The Democratic party have always stood by that great principle and I stand on that platform now。 * * * * Lincoln himself will not answer this question。 * * * It is true * * * （he admits） that under the decision of the Supreme Court； it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code in the Territories。 If he believed in that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the vote。 I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in accordance with his opinions？ * * * Is every man in this land allowed to resist decisions he does not like and only support those which meet his approval？ * * * * It is the fundamental principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final。 * * * * My doctrine is that； even taking Mr。 Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of a man to carry his slaves into the Territories； yet after he gets them there he needs affirmative law to make that right of any value。 The same doctrine applies to all other kinds of property。
〃Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open a liquor store； he has a right to take groceries or liquor there； but the circumstances under which they shall be sold and all the remedies must be prescribed by local legislation； and if that is unfriendly it will drive him out just as effectually as if there was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor。 Hence； I assert； that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people and unfriendly legislation。 If the people want slavery they will have it； and if they do not want it you cannot force it upon them。〃
Neither Lincoln nor Douglas could as yet fairly and fearlessly grapple with the great problem。 Lincoln's virtual rejection and defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court suggests not reform but revolution。 These dark hints that the decisions of the highest tribunal should not be accepted or obeyed； that they were binding only on those who believed in them； portended nothing less than war。 Slavery being an established institution； recognized by the Constitution and regulated by law； had the right to exist。 Lincoln and his party abhorred it and resented the injustice of the law。 Obeying the dominant instinct of the race； the scrupulously observed the form of the law while waging war upon it。 On the other hand it is impossible to find either legal or philosophical foundation for Douglas' arguments。 Slavery had been adjudged lawful in all the Territories。 The proposition gravely argued by him； that the people could lawfully exclude a thing from a place where it had a lawful right to be； was monstrous。 He sternly rebuked Lincoln for his irreverence in refusing to cordially accept the Dred Scott decision and in the next breath； with shocking inconsistency； dissolved its entire force in the menstruum of unfriendly legislation。 The decision was utterly repugnant to the people of the State。 The both viewed it as a political rather than a philosophic problem。 Both rejected it and the consequences flowing from it。 Lincoln quibbled when asked to accept it as a rule governing his political conduct。 Douglas； by a cunning device； sought to destroy its force as a rule of private right。 Lincoln insisted on the essential dishonesty of the juggling trick by which Douglas got rid of the adjudicated law。 Douglas insisted on the anarchic spirit with which Lincoln bade defiance to it。
It would be tedious to follow the debates through in detail。 Necessarily the later arguments were mainly a repetition of those made in the earlier speeches。 Thee was a marked falling off in the good temper and mutual courtesy of the combatants in the later stages of the contest。 The abiding question to which the argument constantly recurred was that of negro slavery； as to which Lincoln was darkly oracular and Douglas was resolutely evasive。 Lincoln again and again pressed Douglas to say whether he