the writings-4-第22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！


difficulty　in　regard　to　the　institution　of　slavery　is　the　mere

agitation　of　office…seekers　and　ambitious　Northern　politicians。　　He

thinks　we　want　to　get　〃his　place；〃　I　suppose。　　I　agree　that　there　are

office…seekers　amongst　us。　　The　Bible　says　somewhere　that　we　are

desperately　selfish。　　I　think　we　would　have　discovered　that　fact

without　the　Bible。　　I　do　not　claim　that　I　am　any　less　so　than　the

average　of　men；　but　I　do　claim　that　I　am　not　more　selfish　than　Judge

Douglas。



But　is　it　true　that　all　the　difficulty　and　agitation　we　have　in

regard　to　this　institution　of　slavery　spring　from　office…seeking；

from　the　mere　ambition　of　politicians？　　Is　that　the　truth？　　How　many

times　have　we　had　danger　from　this　question？　　Go　back　to　the　day　of

the　Missouri　Compromise。　　Go　back　to　the　nullification　question；　at

the　bottom　of　which　lay　this　same　slavery　question。　　Go　back　to　the

time　of　the　annexation　of　Texas。　　Go　back　to　the　troubles　that　led　to

the　Compromise　of　1850。　　You　will　find　that　every　time；　with　the

single　exception　of　the　Nullification　question；　they　sprung　from　an

endeavor　to　spread　this　institution。　　There　never　was　a　party　in　the

history　of　this　country；　and　there　probably　never　will　be；　of

sufficient　strength　to　disturb　the　general　peace　of　the　country。

Parties　themselves　may　be　divided　and　quarrel　on　minor　questions；　yet

it　extends　not　beyond　the　parties　themselves。　　But

does　not　this　question　make　a　disturbance　outside　of　political

circles？　　Does　it　not　enter　into　the　churches　and　rend　them　asunder？

What　divided　the　great　Methodist　Church　into　two　parts；　North　and

South？　　What　has　raised　this　constant　disturbance　in　every

Presbyterian　General　Assembly　that　meets？　　What　disturbed　the

Unitarian　Church　in　this　very　city　two　years　ago？　　What　has　jarred

and　shaken　the　great　American　Tract　Society　recently；　not　yet

splitting　it；　but　sure　to　divide　it　in　the　end？　　Is　it　not　this　same

mighty；　deep…seated　power　that　somehow　operates　on　the　minds　of　men；

exciting　and　stirring　them　up　in　every　avenue　of　society；in

politics；　in　religion；　in　literature；　in　morals；　in　all　the　manifold

relations　of　life？　　Is　this　the　work　of　politicians？　　Is　that

irresistible　power；　which　for　fifty　years　has　shaken　the　government

and　agitated　the　people；　to　be　stifled　and　subdued　by　pretending　that

it　is　an　exceedingly　simple　thing；　and　we　ought　not　to　talk　about　it？

If　you　will　get　everybody　else　to　stop　talking　about　it；　I　assure　you

I　will　quit　before　they　have　half　done　so。　　But　where　is　the

philosophy　or　statesmanship　which　assumes　that　you　can　quiet　that

disturbing　element　in　our　society　which　has　disturbed　us　for　more

than　half　a　century；　which　has　been　the　only　serious　danger　that　has

threatened　our　institutions；I　say；　where　is　the　philosophy　or　the

statesmanship　based　on　the　assumption　that　we　are　to　quit　talking

about　it；　and　that　the　public　mind　is　all　at　once　to　cease　being

agitated　by　it？　　Yet　this　is　the　policy　here　in　the　North　that

Douglas　is　advocating；　that　we　are　to　care　nothing　about　it！　　I　ask

you　if　it　is　not　a　false　philosophy。　　Is　it　not　a　false　statesmanship

that　undertakes　to　build　up　a　system　of　policy　upon　the　basis　of

caring　nothing　about　the　very　thing　that　everybody　does　care　the　most

abouta　thing　which　all　experience　has　shown　we　care　a　very　great

deal　about？



The　Judge　alludes　very　often　in　the　course　of　his　remarks　to　the

exclusive　right　which　the　States　have　to　decide　the　whole　thing　for

themselves。　　I　agree　with　him　very　readily　that　the　different　States

have　that　right。　　He　is　but　fighting　a　man　of　straw　when　he　assumes

that　I　am　contending　against　the　right　of　the　States　to　do　as　they

please　about　it。　　Our　controversy　with　him　is　in　regard　to　the　new

Territories。　　We　agree　that　when　the　States　come　in　as　States　they

have　the　right　and　the　power　to　do　as　they　please。　　We　have　no　power

as　citizens　of　the　free…States；　or　in　our　Federal　capacity　as　members

of　the　Federal　Union　through　the　General　Government；　to　disturb

slavery　in　the　States　where　it　exists。　　We　profess　constantly　that　we

have　no　more　inclination　than　belief　in　the　power　of　the　government

to　disturb　it；　yet　we　are　driven　constantly　to　defend　ourselves　from

the　assumption　that　we　are　warring　upon　the　rights　of　the　Sates。

What　I　insist　upon　is；　that　the　new　Territories　shall　be　kept　free

from　it　while　in　the　Territorial　condition。　　Judge　Douglas　assumes

that　we　have　no　interest　in　them；that　we　have　no　right　whatever　to

interfere。　　I　think　we　have　some　interest。　　I　think　that　as　white　men

we　have。　　Do　we　not　wish　for　an　outlet　for　our　surplus　population；　if

I　may　so　express　myself？　　Do　we　not　feel　an　interest　in　getting　to

that　outlet　with　such　institutions　as　we　would　like　to　have　prevail

there？　　If　you　go　to　the　Territory　opposed　to　slavery；　and　another

man　comes　upon　the　same　ground　with　his　slave；　upon　the　assumption

that　the　things　are　equal；　it　turns　out　that　he　has　the　equal　right

all　his　way；　and　you　have　no　part　of　it　your　way。　　If　he　goes　in　and

makes　it　a　slave　Territory；　and　by　consequence　a　slave　State；　is　it

not　time　that　those　who　desire　to　have　it　a　free　State　were　on　equal

ground？　　Let　me　suggest　it　in　a　different　way。　　How　many　Democrats

are　there　about　here　＇〃A　thousand〃＇　who　have　left　slave　States　and

come　into　the　free　State　of　Illinois　to　get　rid　of　the　institution　of

slavery？　　＇Another　voice：　'A　thousand　and　one。〃＇　I　reckon　there　are　a

thousand　and　one。　　I　will　ask　you；　if　the　policy　you　are　now

advocating　had　prevailed　when　this　country　was　in　a　Territorial

condition；　where　would　you　have　gone　to　get　rid　of　it？　　Where　would

you　have　found　your　free　State　or　Territory　to　go　to？　　And　when

hereafter；　for　any　cause；　the　people　in　this　place　shall　desire　to

find　new　homes；　if　they　wish　to　be　rid　of　the　institution；　where　will

they　find　the　place　to　go　to？



Now；　irrespective　of　the　moral　aspect　of　this　question　as　to　whether

there　is　a　right　or　wrong　in　enslaving　a　negro；　I　am　still　in　favor

of　our　new　Territories　being　in　such　a　condition　that　white　men　may

find　a　home；may　find　some　spot　where　they　can　better　their

condition；　where　they　can　settle　upon　new　soil　and　better　their

condition　in　life。　　I　am　in　favor　of　this；　not　merely　（I　must　say　it

here　as　I　have　elsewhere）　for　our　own　people　who　are　born　amongst　us；

but　as　an　outlet　for　free　white　people　everywhere　the　world　overin

which　Hans；　and　Baptiste；　and　Patrick；　and　all　other　men　from　all　the

world；　may　find　new　homes　and　better　their　conditions　in　life。



I　have　stated　upon　former　occasions；　and　I　may　as　well　state　again；

what　I　understand　to　be　the　real　issue　in　this　controversy　between

Judge　Douglas　and　myself。　　On　the　point　of　my　wanting　to　make　war

between　the　free　and　the　slave　States；　there　has　been　no　issue

between　us。　　So；　too；　when　he　assumes　that　I　am　in　favor　of　producing

a　perfect　social　and　political　equality　between　the　white　and　black

races。　　These　are　false　issues；　upon　which　Judge　Douglas　has　tried　to

force　the　controversy。　　There　is　no　foundation　in　truth　for　the

charge　that　I　maintain　either　of　these　propositions。　　The　real　issue

in　this　controversythe　one　pressing　upon　every　mindis　the

sentiment　on　the　part　of　one　class　that　looks　upon　the　institution　of

slavery　as　a　wrong；　and　of　another　class　that　does　not　look　upon　it

as　a　wrong。　　The　sentiment　that　contemplates　the　institution　of

slavery　in　this　country　as　a　wrong　is　the　sentiment　of　the　Republican

party。　　It　is　the　sentiment　around　which　all　their　actions；　all　their

arguments；　circle；　from　which　all　their　propositions　radiate。　　They

look　upon　it　as　being　a　moral；　social；　and　political　wrong；　and　while

they　contemplate　it　a；　such；　they　nevertheless　have　due　regard　for

its　actual　existence　among　us；　and　the　difficulties　of　getting　rid　of

it　in　any　satisfactory　way；　and　to　all　the　constitutional　obligations

thrown　about　it。　　Yet；　having　a　due　regard　for　these；　they　desire　a

policy　in　regard　to　it　that　looks　to　its　not　creating　any　more

danger。　　They　insist　that　it　should；　as　far　as　may　be；　be　treated　as

a　wrong；　and　one　of　the　methods　of　treating　it　as　a　wrong　is　to　make

provision　that　it　shall　grow　no　larger。　　They　also　desire　a　policy

that　looks　to　a　peaceful　end　of　slavery　at　some　time。　　These　are　the

views　they　entertain　in　regard　to　it　as　I　understand　them；　and　all

their　sentiments；　all　their　arguments　and　propositions；　are　brought

within　this　range。　　I　have　said；　and　I　repeat　it　here；　that　if　there

be　a　man　amongst　us　who　does　not　think　that　the　institution　of

slavery　is　wrong　in　any　one　of　the　aspects　of　which　I　have　spoken；　he

is　misplaced；　and　ought　not　to　be　with　us。　　And　if　there　be　a　man

amongst　us　who　is　so　impatient　of　it　as　a　wrong　as　to　disregard　its

actual　presence　among　us　and　the　difficulty　of　getting　rid　of　it

suddenly　in　a　satisfactory　way；　and　to　disregard　the　constitutional

obligations　th