the writings-3-第2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！



so　much；　and　is　ready　to　suffer　to　the　end。　　And　well　may　he

cling　to　that　principle！　　If　he　has　any　parental　feeling；　well

may　he　cling　to　it。　　That　principle　is　the　only　shred　left　of　his

original　Nebraska　doctrine。　　Under　the　Dred　Scott　decision

〃squatter　sovereignty〃　squatted　out　of　existence；　tumbled　down

like　temporary　scaffolding；　like　the　mould　at　the　foundry；　served

through　one　blast；　and　fell　back　into　loose　sand；　helped　to　carry

an　election；　and　then　was　kicked　to　the　winds。　　His　late　joint

struggle　with　the　Republicans；　against　the　Lecompton

Constitution；　involves　nothing　of　the　original　Nebraska　doctrine。

That　struggle　was　made　on　a　pointthe　right　of　a　people　to　make

their　own　constitutionupon　which　he　and　the　Republicans　have

never　differed。



The　several　points　of　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　in　connection　with

Senator　Douglas's　〃care　not〃　policy；　constitute　the　piece　of

machinery；　in　its　present　state　of　advancement。　　This　was　the

third　point　gained。　　The　working　points　of　that　machinery　are：



Firstly；　That　no　negro　slave；　imported　as　such　from　Africa；　and

no　descendant　of　such　slave；　can　ever　be　a　citizen　of　any　State；

in　the　sense　of　that　term　as　used　in　the　Constitution　of　the

United　States。　　This　point　is　made　in　order　to　deprive　the　negro；

in　every　possible　event；　of　the　benefit　of　that　provision　of　the

United　States　Constitution　which　declares　that　〃The　citizens　of

each　State　shall　be　entitled　to　all　privileges　and　immunities　of

citizens　in　the　several　States。〃



Secondly；　That；　〃subject　to　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States；〃　neither　Congress　nor　a　Territorial　Legislature　can

exclude　slavery　from　any　United　States　Territory。　　This　point　is

made　in　order　that　individual　men　may　fill　up　the　Territories

with　slaves；　without　danger　of　losing　them　as　property；　and　thus

to　enhance　the　chances　of　permanency　to　the　institution　through

all　the　future。



Thirdly；　That　whether　the　holding　a　negro　in　actual　slavery　in　a

free　State　makes　him　free；　as　against　the　holder；　the　United

States　courts　will　not　decide；　but　will　leave　to　be　decided　by

the　courts　of　any　slave　State　the　negro　may　be　forced　into　by　the

master。　　This　point　is　made；　not　to　be　pressed　immediately；　but；

if　acquiesced　in　for　a　while；　and　apparently　indorsed　by　the

people　at　an　election；　then　to　sustain　the　logical　conclusion

that　what　Dred　Scott's　master　might　lawfully　do　with　Dred　Scott；

in　the　free　State　of　Illinois；　every　other　master　may　lawfully　do

with　any　other　one；　or　one　thousand　slaves；　in　Illinois；　or　in

any　other　free　State。



Auxiliary　to　all　this；　and　working　hand　in　hand　with　it；　the

Nebraska　doctrine；　or　what　is　left　of　it；　is　to　educate　and　mould

public　opinion；　at　least　Northern　public　opinion；　not　to　care

whether　slavery　is　voted　down　or　voted　up。　　This　shows　exactly

where　we　now　are；　and　partially；　also；　wither　we　are　tending。



It　will　throw　additional　light　on　the　latter；　to　go　back　and　run

the　mind　over　the　string　of　historical　facts　already　stated。

Several　things　will　now　appear　less　dark　and　mysterious　than　they

did　when　they　were　transpiring。　　The　people　were　to　be　left

〃perfectly　free；〃　〃　subject　only　to　the　Constitution。〃　What　the

Constitution　had　to　do　with　it；　outsiders　could　not　then　see。

Plainly　enough　now；it　was　an　exactly　fitted　niche；　for　the　Dred

Scott　decision　to　afterward　come　in；　and　declare　the　perfect

freedom　of　the　people　to　be　just　no　freedom　at　all。　　Why　was　the

amendment；　expressly　declaring　the　right　of　the　people；　voted

down？　Plainly　enough　now；the　adoption　of　it　would　have　spoiled

the　niche　for　the　Dred　Scott　decision。　　Why　was　the　court

decision　held　up？　Why　even　a　Senator's　individual　opinion

withheld；　till　after　the　Presidential　election？　Plainly　enough

now；the　speaking　out　then　would　have　damaged　the　〃perfectly

free〃　argument　upon　which　the　election　was　to　be　carried。　　Why

the　outgoing　President's　felicitation　on　the　indorsement？　Why　the

delay　of　a　reargument？　Why　the　incoming　President's　advance

exhortation　in　favor　of　the　decision？　These　things　look　like　the

cautious　patting　and　petting　of　a　spirited　horse　preparatory　to

mounting　him；　when　it　is　dreaded　that　he　may　give　the　rider　a

fall。　　And　why　the　hasty　after…indorsement　of　the　decision　by　the

President　and　others？



We　cannot　absolutely　know　that　all　these　exact　adaptations　are

the　result　of　preconcert。　　But　when　we　see　a　lot　of　framed

timbers；　different　portions　of　which　we　know　have　been　gotten　out

at　different　times　and　places　and　by　different　workmen；　Stephen；

Franklin；　Roger；　and　James；　for　instance；　and　when　we　see　these

timbers　joined　together；　and　see　they　exactly　make　the　frame　of　a

house　or　a　mill；　all　the　tenons　and　mortises　exactly　fitting；　and

all　the　lengths　and　proportions　of　the　different　pieces　exactly

adapted　to　their　respective　places；　and　not　a　piece　too　many　or

too　few；not　omitting　even　scaffolding；or；　if　a　single　piece

be　lacking；　we　see　the　place　in　the　frame　exactly　fitted　and

prepared　yet　to　bring　such　piece　in；in　such　a　case；　we　find　it

impossible　not　to　believe　that　Stephen　and　Franklin　and　Roger　and

James　all　understood　one　another　from　the　beginning；　and　all

worked　upon　a　common　plan　or　draft　drawn　up　before　the　first　blow

was　struck。



It　should　not　be　overlooked　that　by　the　Nebraska　Bill　the　people

of　a　State　as　well　as　Territory　were　to　be　left　〃perfectly　free；〃

〃subject　only　to　the　Constitution。〃　Why　mention　a　State？　They

were　legislating　for　Territories；　and　not　for　or　about　States。

Certainly　the　people　of　a　State　are　and　ought　to　be　subject　to

the　Constitution　of　the　United　States；　but　why　is　mention　of　this

lugged　into　this　merely　Territorial　law？　Why　are　the　people　of　a

Territory　and　the　people　of　a　State　therein　lumped　together；　and

their　relation　to　the　Constitution　therefore　treated　as　being

precisely　the　same？　While　the　opinion　of　the　court；　by　Chief

Justice　Taney；　in　the　Dred　Scott　case；　and　the　separate　opinions

of　all　the　concurring　Judges；　expressly　declare　that　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States　neither　permits　Congress　nor　a

Territorial　Legislature　to　exclude　slavery　from　any　United　States

Territory；　they　all　omit　to　declare　whether　or　not　the　same

Constitution　permits　a　State；　or　the　people　of　a　State；　to

exclude　it。　　Possibly；　this　is　a　mere　omission；　but　who　can　be

quite　sure；　if　McLean　or　Curtis　had　sought　to　get　into　the

opinion　a　declaration　of　unlimited　power　in　the　people　of　a　State

to　exclude　slavery　from　their　limits；　just　as　Chase　and　Mace

sought　to　get　such　declaration；　in　behalf　of　the　people　of　a

Territory；　into　the　Nebraska　Bill；I　ask；　who　can　be　quite　sure

that　it　would　not　have　been　voted　down　in　the　one　case　as　it　had

been　in　the　other？　The　nearest　approach　to　the　point　of　declaring

the　power　of　a　State　over　slavery　is　made　by　Judge　Nelson。　　He

approaches　it　more　than　once；　Using　the　precise　idea；　and　almost

the　language；　too；　of