the writings-3-第7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！



me　in　his　devotion　to　the　principle；　whatever　he　may　have　done　in

efficiency　in　advocating　it。　　I　think　that　I　have　said　it　in　your

hearing；　that　I　believe　each　individual　is　naturally　entitled　to

do　as　he　pleases　with　himself　and　the　fruit　of　his　labor；　so　far

as　it　in　no　wise　interferes　with　any　other　man's　rights；　that

each　community　as　a　State　has　a　right　to　do　exactly　as　it　pleases

with　all　the　concerns　within　that　State　that　interfere　with　the

right　of　no　other　State；　and　that　the　General　Government；　upon

principle；　has　no　right　to　interfere　with　anything　other　than

that　general　class　of　things　that　does　concern　the　whole。　　I　have

said　that　at　all　times。　　I　have　said；　as　illustrations；　that　I　do

not　believe　in　the　right　of　Illinois　to　interfere　with　the

cranberry　laws　of　Indiana；　the　oyster　laws　of　Virginia；　or　the

liquor　laws　of　Maine。　　I　have　said　these　things　over　and　over

again；　and　I　repeat　them　here　as　my　sentiments。



How　is　it；　then；　that　Judge　Douglas　infers；　because　I　hope　to　see

slavery　put　where　the　public　mind　shall　rest　in　the　belief　that

it　is　in　the　course　of　ultimate　extinction；　that　I　am　in　favor　of

Illinois　going　over　and　interfering　with　the　cranberry　laws　of

Indiana？　　What　can　authorize　him　to　draw　any　such　inference？



I　suppose　there　might　be　one　thing　that　at　least　enabled　him　to

draw　such　an　inference　that　would　not　be　true　with　me　or　many

others：　that　is；　because　he　looks　upon　all　this　matter　of　slavery

as　an　exceedingly　little　thing；this　matter　of　keeping　one　sixth

of　the　population　of　the　whole　nation　in　a　state　of　oppression

and　tyranny　unequaled　in　the　world。　　He　looks　upon　it　as　being　an

exceedingly　little　thing；only　equal　to　the　question　of　the

cranberry　laws　of　Indiana；　as　something　having　no　moral　question

in　it；　as　something　on　a　par　with　the　question　of　whether　a　man

shall　pasture　his　land　with　cattle；　or　plant　it　with　tobacco；　so

little　and　so　small　a　thing　that　he　concludes；　if　I　could　desire

that　anything　should　be　done　to　bring　about　the　ultimate

extinction　of　that　little　thing；　I　must　be　in　favor　of　bringing

about　an　amalgamation　of　all　the　other　little　things　in　the

Union。　　Now；　it　so　happensand　there；　I　presume；　is　the

foundation　of　this　mistakethat　the　Judge　thinks　thus；　and　it　so

happens　that　there　is　a　vast　portion　of　the　American　people　that

do　not　look　upon　that　matter　as　being　this　very　little　thing。

They　look　upon　it　as　a　vast　moral　evil；　they　can　prove　it　as　such

by　the　writings　of　those　who　gave　us　the　blessings　of　liberty

which　we　enjoy；　and　that　they　so　looked　upon　it；　and　not　as　an

evil　merely　confining　itself　to　the　States　where　it　is　situated；

and　while　we　agree　that；　by　the　Constitution　we　assented　to；　in

the　States　where　it　exists；　we　have　no　right　to　interfere　with

it；　because　it　is　in　the　Constitution；　and　we　are　by　both　duty

and　inclination　to　stick　by　that　Constitution；　in　all　its　letter

and　spirit；　from　beginning　to　end；



So　much；　then；　as　to　my　dispositionmy　wish　to　have　all　the

State　legislatures　blotted　out；　and　to　have　one　consolidated

government；　and　a　uniformity　of　domestic　regulations　in　all　the

States；　by　which　I　suppose　it　is　meant；　if　we　raise　corn　here；　we

must　make　sugar…cane　grow　here　too；　and　we　must　make　those　which

grow　North　grow　in　the　South。　　All　this　I　suppose　he　understands

I　am　in　favor　of　doing。　　Now；　so　much　for　all　this　nonsense；　for

I　must　call　it　so。　　The　Judge　can　have　no　issue　with　me　on　a

question　of　establishing　uniformity　in　the　domestic　regulations

of　the　States。



A　little　now　on　the　other　point；the　Dred　Scott　decision。

Another　of　the　issues　he　says　that　is　to　be　made　with　me　is　upon

his　devotion　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　and　my　opposition　to　it。



I　have　expressed　heretofore；　and　I　now　repeat；　my　opposition　to

the　Dred　Scott　decision；　but　I　should　be　allowed　to　state　the

nature　of　that　opposition；　and　I　ask　your　indulgence　while　I　do

so。　　What　is　fairly　implied　by　the　term　Judge　Douglas　has　used；

〃resistance　to　the　decision〃？　　I　do　not　resist　it。　　If　I　wanted

to　take　Dred　Scott　from　his　master；　I　would　be　interfering　with

property；　and　that　terrible　difficulty　that　Judge　Douglas　speaks

of；　of　interfering　with　property；　would　arise。　　But　I　am　doing　no

such　thing　as　that；　but　all　that　I　am　doing　is　refusing　to　obey

it　as　a　political　rule。　　If　I　were　in　Congress；　and　a　vote　should

come　up　on　a　question　whether　slavery　should　be　prohibited　in　a

new　Territory；　in　spite　of　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　I　would　vote

that　it　should。



That　is　what　I　should　do。　　Judge　Douglas　said　last　night　that

before　the　decision　he　might　advance　his　opinion；　and　it　might　be

contrary　to　the　decision　when　it　was　made；　but　after　it　was　made

he　would　abide　by　it　until　it　was　reversed。　　Just　so！　　We　let

this　property　abide　by　the　decision；　but　we　will　try　to　reverse

that　decision。　　We　will　try　to　put　it　where　Judge　Douglas　would

not　object；　for　he　says　he　will　obey　it　until　it　is　reversed。

Somebody　has　to　reverse　that　decision；　since　it　is　made；　and　we

mean　to　reverse　it；　and　we　mean　to　do　it　peaceably。



What　are　the　uses　of　decisions　of　courts？　　They　have　two　uses。

As　rules　of　property　they　have　two　uses。　　First；　they　decide　upon

the　question　before　the　court。　　They　decide　in　this　case　that

Dred　Scott　is　a　slave。　　Nobody　resists　that；　not　only　that；　but

they　say　to　everybody　else　that　persons　standing　just　as　Dred

Scott　stands　are　as　he　is。　　That　is；　they　say　that　when　a

question　comes　up　upon　another　person；　it　will　be　so　decided

again；　unless　the　court　decides　in　another　way；　unless　the　court

overrules　its　decision。　　Well；　we　mean　to　do　what　we　can　to　have

the　court　decide　the　other　way。　　That　is　one　thing　we　mean　to　try

to　do。



The　sacredness　that　Judge　Douglas　throws　around　this　decision　is

a　degree　of　sacredness　that　has　never　been　before　thrown　around

any　other　decision。　　I　have　never　heard　of　such　a　thing。　　Why；

decisions　apparently　contrary　to　that　decision；　or　that　good

lawyers　thought　were　contrary　to　that　decision；　have　been　made　by

that　very　court　before。　　It　is　the　first　of　its　kind；　it　is　an

astonisher　in　legal　history。　　It　is　a　new　wonder　of　the　world。

It　is　based　upon　falsehood　in　the　main　as　to　the　facts；

allegations　of　facts　upon　which　it　stands　are　not　facts　at　all　in

many　instances；　and　no　decision　made　on　any　questionthe　first

instance　of　a　decision　made　under　so　many　unfavorable

circumstancesthus　placed；　has　ever　been　held　by　the　profession

as　law；　and　it　has　always　needed　confirmation　before　the　lawyers

regarded　it　as　settled　law。　　But　Judge　Douglas　will　have　it　that

all　hands　must　take　this　extraordinary　decision；　made　under　these

extraordinary　circumstances；　and　give　their　vote　in　Congress　in

accordance　with　it；　yield　to　it；　and　obey　it　in　every　possible

sense。　　Circumstances　alter　cases。　　Do　not　gentlemen　here

remember　the　case　of　that　same　Supreme　Court　some　twenty…five　or

thirty