the writings-3-第12部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



Buchanan　and　his　friends　have　not　contended　for　the　contrary

principle　any　more　than　the　Douglas　men　or　the　Republicans。　　They

have　insisted　that　whatever　of　small　irregularities　existed　in

getting　up　the　Lecompton　Constitution　were　such　as　happen　in　the

settlement　of　all　new　Territories。　　The　question　was；　Was　it　a

fair　emanation　of　the　people？　　It　was　a　question　of　fact；　and　not

of　principle。　　As　to　the　principle；　all　were　agreed。　　Judge

Douglas　voted　with　the　Republicans　upon　that　matter　of　fact。



He　and　they；　by　their　voices　and　votes；　denied　that　it　was　a　fair

emanation　of　the　people。　　The　Administration　affirmed　that　it

was。　　With　respect　to　the　evidence　bearing　upon　that　question　of

fact；　I　readily　agree　that　Judge　Douglas　and　the　Republicans　had

the　right　on　their　side；　and　that　the　Administration　was　wrong。

But　I　state　again　that；　as　a　matter　of　principle；　there　is　no

dispute　upon　the　right　of　a　people　in　a　Territory；　merging　into　a

State；　to　form　a　constitution　for　themselves　without　outside

interference　from　any　quarter。　　This　being　so；　what　is　Judge

Douglas　going　to　spend　his　life　for？　　Is　he　going　to　spend　his

life　in　maintaining　a　principle　that　nobody　on　earth　opposes？

Does　he　expect　to　stand　up　in　majestic　dignity；　and　go　through

his　apotheosis　and　become　a　god　in　the　maintaining　of　a　principle

which　neither　man　nor　mouse　in　all　God's　creation　is　opposing？

Now　something　in　regard　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　more

specially；　for　I　pass　from　this　other　question　of　popular

sovereignty　as　the　most　arrant　humbug　that　has　ever　been

attempted　on　an　intelligent　community。



As　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution；　I　have　already　said　that　on　the

question　of　fact；　as　to　whether　it　was　a　fair　emanation　of　the

people　or　not；　Judge　Douglas；　with　the　Republicans　and　some

Americans；　had　greatly　the　argument　against　the　Administration；

and　while　I　repeat　this；　I　wish　to　know　what　there　is　in　the

opposition　of　Judge　Douglas　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　that

entitles　him　to　be　considered　the　only　opponent　to　it；as　being

par　excellence　the　very　quintessence　of　that　opposition。　　I　agree

to　the　rightfulness　of　his　opposition。　　He　in　the　Senate　and　his

class　of　men　there　formed　the　number　three　and　no　more。　　In　the

House　of　Representatives　his　class　of　menthe　Anti…Lecompton

Democratsformed　a　number　of　about　twenty。　　It　took　one　hundred

and　twenty　to　defeat　the　measure；　against　one　hundred　and　twelve。

Of　the　votes　of　that　one　hundred　and　twenty；　Judge　Douglas's

friends　furnished　twenty；　to　add　to　which　there　were　six

Americans　and　ninety…four　Republicans。　　I　do　not　say　that　I　am

precisely　accurate　in　their　numbers；　but　I　am　sufficiently　so　for

any　use　I　am　making　of　it。



Why　is　it　that　twenty　shall　be　entitled　to　all　the　credit　of

doing　that　work；　and　the　hundred　none　of　it？　　Why；　if；　as　Judge

Douglas　says；　the　honor　is　to　be　divided　and　due　credit　is　to　be

given　to　other　parties；　why　is　just　so　much　given　as　is　consonant

with　the　wishes；　the　interests；　and　advancement　of　the　twenty？

My　understanding　is；　when　a　common　job　is　done；　or　a　common

enterprise　prosecuted；　if　I　put　in　five　dollars　to　your　one；　I

have　a　right　to　take　out　five　dollars　to　your　one。　　But　he　does

not　so　understand　it。　　He　declares　the　dividend　of　credit　for

defeating　Lecompton　upon　a　basis　which　seems　unprecedented　and

incomprehensible。



Let　us　see。　　Lecompton　in　the　raw　was　defeated。　　It　afterward

took　a　sort　of　cooked…up　shape；　and　was　passed　in　the　English

bill。　　It　is　said　by　the　Judge　that　the　defeat　was　a　good　and

proper　thing。　　If　it　was　a　good　thing；　why　is　he　entitled　to　more

credit　than　others　for　the　performance　of　that　good　act；　unless

there　was　something　in　the　antecedents　of　the　Republicans　that

might　induce　every　one　to　expect　them　to　join　in　that　good　work；

and　at　the　same　time　something　leading　them　to　doubt　that　he

would？　　Does　he　place　his　superior　claim　to　credit　on　the　ground

that　he　performed　a　good　act　which　was　never　expected　of　him？　　He

says　I　have　a　proneness　for　quoting　Scripture。　　If　I　should　do　so

now；　it　occurs　that　perhaps　he　places　himself　somewhat　upon　the

ground　of　the　parable　of　the　lost　sheep　which　went　astray　upon

the　mountains；　and　when　the　owner　of　the　hundred　sheep　found　the

one　that　was　lost；　and　threw　it　upon　his　shoulders　and　came　home

rejoicing；　it　was　said　that　there　was　more　rejoicing　over　the　one

sheep　that　was　lost　and　had　been　found　than　over　the　ninety　and

nine　in　the　fold。　　The　application　is　made　by　the　Saviour　in　this

parable；　thus：　〃Verily；　I　say　unto　you；　there　is　more　rejoicing

in　heaven　over　one　sinner　that　repenteth；　than　over　ninety　and

nine　just　persons　that　need　no　repentance。〃



And　now；　if　the　Judge　claims　the　benefit　of　this　parable；　let　him

repent。　　Let　him　not　come　up　here　and　say：　〃I　am　the　only　just

person；　and　you　are　the　ninety…nine　sinners！　　Repentance　before

forgiveness　is　a　provision　of　the　Christian　system；　and　on　that

condition　alone　will　the　Republicans　grant　his　forgiveness。



How　will　he　prove　that　we　have　ever　occupied　a　different　position

in　regard　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　or　any　principle　in　it？

He　says　he　did　not　make　his　opposition　on　the　ground　as　to

whether　it　was　a　free　or　slave　constitution；　and　he　would　have

you　understand　that　the　Republicans　made　their　opposition　because

it　ultimately　became　a　slave　constitution。　　To　make　proof　in

favor　of　himself　on　this　point；　he　reminds　us　that　he　opposed

Lecompton　before　the　vote　was　taken　declaring　whether　the　State

was　to　be　free　or　slave。　　But　he　forgets　to　say　that　our

Republican　Senator；　Trumbull；　made　a　speech　against　Lecompton

even　before　he　did。



Why　did　he　oppose　it？　　Partly；　as　he　declares；　because　the

members　of　the　convention　who　framed　it　were　not　fairly　elected

by　the　people；　that　the　people　were　not　allowed　to　vote　unless

they　had　been　registered；　and　that　the　people　of　whole　counties；

some　instances；　were　not　registered。　　For　these　reasons　he

declares　the　Constitution　was　not　an　emanation；　in　any　true

sense；　from　the　people。　　He　also　has　an　additional　objection　as

to　the　mode　of　submitting　the　Constitution　back　to　the　people。

But　bearing　on　the　question　of　whether　the　delegates　were　fairly

elected；　a　speech　of　his；　made　something　more　than　twelve　months

ago；　from　this　stand；　becomes　important。　　It　was　made　a　little

while　before　the　election　of　the　delegates　who　made　Lecompton。

In　that　speech　he　declared　there　was　every　reason　to　hope　and

believe　the　election　would　be　fair；　and　if　any　one　failed　to

vote；　it　would　be　his　own　culpable　fault。



I；　a　few　days　after；　made　a　sort　of　answer　to　that　speech。　　In

that　answer　I　made；　substantially；　the　very　argument　with　which

he　combated　his　Lecompton　adversaries　in　the　Senate　last　winter。

I　pointed　to　the　facts　that　the　people　could　not　vote　without

being　registered；　and　that　the　time　for　registering　had　gone　by。

I　commented　on　it　as