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！
this purpose and expectation shall be given up。
He charges； in substance； that I invite a war of sections； that I
propose all the local institutions of the different States shall
become consolidated and uniform。 What is there in the language
of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such
construction？ I have again and again said that I would not enter
into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery。
Judge Douglas said； at Bloomington； that I used language most
able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant； and that
while I had protested against entering into the slave States； I
nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw
missiles into Kentucky； to disturb them in their domestic
institutions。
I said in that speech； and I meant no more； that the institution
of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the
framers of this government placed it and left it。 I do not
understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people
of the free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into
the slave States。 I was not using that passage for the purpose
for which he infers I did use it。 I said：
〃We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was
created for the avowed object and with the confident promise of
putting an end to slavery agitation。 Under the operation of that
policy that agitation has not only not ceased； but has constantly
augmented。 In my opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall
have been reached and passed。 'A house divided against itself
cannot stand。' I believe that this government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free； it will become all one
thing or all the other。 Either the opponents of slavery will
arrest the further spread of it； and place it where the public
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction； or its advocates will push it forward till
it shall become alike lawful in all the States； old as well as
new； North as well as South。〃
Now； you all see； from that quotation； I did not express my wish
on anything。 In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of
my own； I simply expressed my expectation。 Cannot the Judge
perceive a distinction between a purpose and an expectation？ I
have often expressed an expectation to die； but I have never
expressed a wish to die。 I said at Chicago； and now repeat； that
I am quite aware this government has endured； half slave and half
free； for eighty…two years。 I understand that little bit of
history。 I expressed the opinion I did because I perceivedor
thought I perceiveda new set of causes introduced。 I did say
at Chicago； in my speech there； that I do wish to see the spread
of slavery arrested； and to see it placed where the public mind
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate
extinction。 I said that because I supposed； when the public mind
shall rest in that belief； we shall have peace on the slavery
question。 I have believedand now believethe public mind did
rest on that belief up to the introduction of the Nebraska Bill。
Although I have ever been opposed to slavery； so far I rested in
the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate
extinction。 For that reason it had been a minor question with
me。 I might have been mistaken； but I had believed； and now
believe； that the whole public mind； that is； the mind of the
great majority； had rested in that belief up to the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise。 But upon that event I became convinced that
either I had been resting in a delusion； or the institution was
being placed on a new basis； a basis for making it perpetual；
national； and universal。 Subsequent events have greatly
confirmed me in that belief。 I believe that bill to be the
beginning of a conspiracy for that purpose。 So believing； I have
since then considered that question a paramount one。 So
believing； I thought the public mind will never rest till the
power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be
acknowledged and exercised on the one hand or； on the other； all
resistance be entirely crushed out。 I have expressed that
opinion； and I entertain it to…night。 It is denied that there is
any tendency to the nationalization of slavery in these States。
Mr。 Brooks； of South Carolina； in one of his speeches； when they
were presenting him canes； silver plate； gold pitchers； and the
like； for assaulting Senator Sumner； distinctly affirmed his
opinion that when this Constitution was formed it was the belief
of no man that slavery would last to the present day。 He said；
what I think； that the framers of our Constitution placed the
institution of slavery where the public mind rested in the hope
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction。 But he went on
to say that the men of the present age； by their experience； have
become wiser than the framers of the Constitution； and the
invention of the cotton gin had made the perpetuity of slavery a
necessity in this country。
As another piece of evidence tending to this same point： Quite
recently in Virginia； a manthe owner of slavesmade a will
providing that after his death certain of his slaves should have
their freedom if they should so choose； and go to Liberia； rather
than remain in slavery。 They chose to be liberated。 But the
persons to whom they would descend as property claimed them as
slaves。 A suit was instituted； which finally came to the Supreme
Court of Virginia； and was therein decided against the slaves
upon the ground that a negro cannot make a choice； that they had
no legal power to choose； could not perform the condition upon
which their freedom depended。
I do not mention this with any purpose of criticizing it； but to
connect it with the arguments as affording additional evidence of
the change of sentiment upon this question of slavery in the
direction of making it perpetual and national。 I argue now as I
did before； that there is such a tendency； and I am backed； not
merely by the facts； but by the open confession in the slave
States。
And now as to the Judge's inference that because I wish to see
slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction；placed
where our fathers originally placed it；I wish to annihilate the
State Legislatures； to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the
Green Mountains； to freeze ice in Florida； to cut lumber on the
broad Illinois prairie；that I am in favor of all these
ridiculous and impossible things。
It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if；
when Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from
free territory； when courts did have the fashion of deciding that
taking a slave into a free country made him free；I say it is a
sufficient answer to ask if any of this ridiculous nonsense about
consolidation and uniformity did actually follow。 Who heard of
any such thing because of the Ordinance of '87？ because of the
Missouri restriction？ because of the numerous court decisions of
that character？
Now； as to the Dred Scott decision； for upon that he makes his
last point at me。 He boldly takes ground in favor of that
decision。
This is one half the onslaught； and one third of the entire plan
of the campaign。 I am opposed to that decision in a certain
sense； but not in the sense which he puts it。 I say that in so
far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master； and against
Dred Scott and his family； I do not propose to disturb or resist
the decision。
I never have proposed to do any such thing。 I think that in
respect for judicial authority my humble history would not suffer
in comparison with that of Judge Douglas。 He would have the
citizen conform his vote to that decision； the member of
Congress； his； the President； his use of the veto power。 He
would make it a rule of political action for the people and all
the depar