the writings-3-第20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！



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　workmenStephen；

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　the　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　feel

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　before　the　first　blow

was　struck。〃



When　my　friend　Judge　Douglas　came　to　Chicago　on　the　9th　of　July；

this　speech　having　been　delivered　on　the　16th　of　June；　he　made　an

harangue　there；　in　which　he　took　hold　of　this　speech　of　mine；

showing　that　he　had　carefully　read　it；　and　while　he　paid　no

attention　to　this　matter　at　all；　but　complimented　me　as　being　a

〃kind；　amiable；　and　intelligent　gentleman；〃　notwithstanding　I　had

said　this；　he　goes　on　and　eliminates；　or　draws　out；　from　my

speech　this　tendency　of　mine　to　set　the　States　at　war　with　one

another；　to　make　all　the　institutions　uniform；　and　set　the

niggers　and　white　people　to　marrying　together。　　Then；　as　the

Judge　had　complimented　me　with　these　pleasant　titles　（I　must

confess　to　my　weakness）；　I　was　a　little　〃taken；〃　for　it　came　from

a　great　man。　　I　was　not　very　much　accustomed　to　flattery；　and　it

came　the　sweeter　to　me。　　I　was　rather　like　the　Hoosier；　with　the

gingerbread；　when　he　said　he　reckoned　he　loved　it　better　than　any

other　man；　and　got　less　of　it。　　As　the　Judge　had　so　flattered　me；

I　could　not　make　up　my　mind　that　he　meant　to　deal　unfairly　with

me；　so　I　went　to　work　to　show　him　that　he　misunderstood　the　whole

scope　of　my　speech；　and　that　I　really　never　intended　to　set　the

people　at　war　with　one　another。　　As　an　illustration；　the　next

time　I　met　him；　which　was　at　Springfield；　I　used　this　expression；

that　I　claimed　no　right　under　the　Constitution；　nor　had　I　any

inclination；　to　enter　into　the　slave　States　and　interfere　with

the　institutions　of　slavery。　　He　says　upon　that：　Lincoln　will　not

enter　into　the　slave　States；　but　will　go　to　the　banks　of　the

Ohio；　on　this　side；　and　shoot　over！　　He　runs　on；　step　by　step；　in

the　horse…chestnut　style　of　argument；　until　in　the　Springfield

speech　he　says：　〃Unless　he　shall　be　successful　in　firing　his

batteries　until　he　shall　have　extinguished　slavery　in　all　the

States　the　Union　shall　be　dissolved。〃　　Now；　I　don't　think　that

was　exactly　the　way　to　treat　〃a　kind；　amiable；　intelligent

gentleman。〃　　I　know　if　I　had　asked　the　Judge　to　show　when　or

where　it　was　I　had　said　that；　if　I　didn't　succeed　in　firing　into

the　slave　States　until　slavery　should　be　extinguished；　the　Union

should　be　dissolved；　he　could　not　have　shown　it。　　I　understand

what　he　would　do。　　He　would　say：　I　don't　mean　to　quote　from　you；

but　this　was　the　result　of　what　you　say。　　But　I　have　the　right　to

ask；　and　I　do　ask　now；　Did　you　not　put　it　in　such　a　form　that　an

ordinary　reader　or　listener　would　take　it　as　an　expression　from

me？



In　a　speech　at　Springfield；　on　the　night　of　the　17th；　I　thought　I

might　as　well　attend　to　my　own　business　a　little；　and　I　recalled

his　attention　as　well　as　I　could　to　this　charge　of　conspiracy　to

nationalize　slavery。　　I　called　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　he

had　acknowledged　in　my　hearing　twice　that　he　had　carefully　read

the　speech；　and；　in　the　language　of　the　lawyers；　as　he　had　twice

read　the　speech；　and　still　had　put　in　no　plea　or　answer；　I　took　a

default　on　him。　　I　insisted　that　I　had　a　right　then　to　renew　that

charge　of　conspiracy。　　Ten　days　afterward　I　met　the　Judge　at

Clinton；that　is　to　say；　I　was　on　the　ground；　but　not　in　the

discussion；and　heard　him　make　a　speech。　　Then　he　comes　in　with

his　plea　to　this　charge；　for　the　first　time；　and　his　plea　when

put　in；　as　well　as　I　can　recollect　it；　amounted　to　this：　that　he

never　had　any　talk　with　Judge　Taney　or　the　President　of　the

United　States　with　regard　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision　before　it

was　made。　　I　（Lincoln）　ought　to　know　that　the　man　who　makes　a

charge　without　knowing　it　to　be　true　falsifies　as　much　as　he　who

knowingly　tells　a　falsehood；　and；　lastly；　that　he　would　pronounce

the　whole　thing　a　falsehood；　but；　he　would　make　no　personal

application　of　the　charge　of　falsehood；　not　because　of　any　regard

for　the　〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman；〃　but　because　of

his　own　personal　self…respect！　　I　have　understood　since　then　（but

＇turning　to　Judge　Douglas＇　will　not　hold　the　Judge　to　it　if　he　is

not　willing）　that　he　has　broken　through　the　〃self…respect；〃　and

has　got　to　saying　the　thing　out。　　The　Judge　nods　to　me　that　it　is

so。　　It　is　fortunate　for　me　that　I　can　keep　as　good…humored　as　I

do；　when　the　Judge　acknowledges　that　he　has　been　trying　to　make　a

question　of　veracity　with　me。　　I　know　the　Judge　is　a　great　man；

while　I　am　only　a　small　man；　but　I　feel　that　I　have　got　him。　　I

demur　to　that　plea。　　I　waive　all　objections　that　it　was　not　filed

till　after　default　was　taken；　and　demur　to　it　upon　the　merits。

What　if　Judge　Douglas　never　did　talk　with　Chief　Justice　Taney　and

the　President　before　the　Dred　Scott　decision　was　made；　does　it

follow　that　he　could　not　have　had　as　perfect　an　understanding

without　talking　as　with　it？　　I　am　not　disposed　to　stand　upon　my

legal　advantage。　　I　am　disposed　to　take　his　denial　as　being　like

an　answer　in　chancery；　that　he　neither　had　any　knowledge；

information；　or　belief　in　the　existence　of　such　a　conspiracy。　　I

am　disposed　to　take　his　answer　as　being　as　broad　as　though　he　had

put　it　in　these　words。　　And　now；　I　ask；　even　if　he　had　done　so；

have　not　I　a　right　to　prove　it　on　him；　and　to　offer　the　evidence

of　more　than　two　witnesses；　by　whom　to　prove　it；　and　if　the

evidence　proves　the　existence　of　the　conspiracy；　does　his　broader

answer　denying　all　knowledge；　information；　or　belief；　disturb　the

fact？　　It　can　only　show　that　he　was　used　by　conspirators；　and　was

not　a　leader　of　them。



Now；　in　regard　to　his　reminding　me　of　the　moral　rule　that　persons

who　tell　what　they　do　not　know　to　be　true　falsify　as　much　as

those　who　knowingly　tell　falsehoods。　　I　remember　the　rule；　and　it

must　be　borne　in　mind　that　in　what　I　have　read　to　you；　I　do　not

say　that　I　know　such　a　conspiracy　to　exist。　　To　that　I　reply；　I

believe　it。　　If　the　Judge　says　that　I　do　not　believe　it；　then　he

says　what　he　does　not　know；　and　falls　within　his　own　rule；　that

he　who　asserts　a　thing　which　he　does　not　know　to　be　true；

falsifies　as　much　as　he　who　knowingly　tells　a　falsehood。　　I　want

to　call　your　attention　to　a　little　discussion　on　that　branch　of