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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
off at the end of twenty years？ Why did they make provision that in
all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever
inhibited？ Why stop its spread in one direction； and cut off its
source in another； if they did not look to its being placed in the
course of its ultimate extinction？
Again： the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the
Constitution of the United States two or three times； and in neither
of these cases does the word 〃slavery〃 or 〃negro race〃 occur； but
covert language is used each time； and for a purpose full of
significance。 What is the language in regard to the prohibition of
the African slave…trade？ It runs in about this way：
〃The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit； shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight。〃
The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and
the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation； and
there the language used is：
〃Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States which may be included within this Union； according to
their respective numbers； which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons； including those bound to service for a
term of years； and excluding Indians not taxed； three…fifths of all
other persons。〃
It says 〃persons；〃 not slaves； not negroes； but this 〃three…fifths〃
can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes。
Lastly； in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves； it
is said：
〃No person held to service or labor in one State； under the laws
thereof； escaping into another； shall in consequence of any law or
regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor； but
shall be delivered up； on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due。〃
There again there is no mention of the word 〃negro〃 or of slavery。
In all three of these places； being the only allusions to slavery in
the instrument； covert language is used。 Language is used not
suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us。
And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be
that covert language was used with a purpose； and that purpose was
that in our Constitution； which it was hoped and is still hoped will
endure forever；when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic
men； after the institution of slavery had passed from among us；
there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty
suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among
us。 This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the government
expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end。
They expected and intended that it should be in the course of
ultimate extinction。 And when I say that I desire to see the further
spread of it arrested； I only say I desire to see that done which the
fathers have first done。 When I say I desire to see it placed where
the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction； I only say I desire to see it placed where they
placed it。 It is not true that our fathers； as Judge Douglas
assumes； made this government part slave and part free。 Understand
the sense in which he puts it。 He assumes that slavery is a rightful
thing within itself；was introduced by the framers of the
Constitution。 The exact truth is； that they found the institution
existing among us； and they left it as they found it。 But in making
the government they left this institution with many clear marks of
disapprobation upon it。 They found slavery among them； and they left
it among them because of the difficultythe absolute impossibility
of its immediate removal。 And when Judge Douglas asks me why we
cannot let it remain part slave and part free； as the fathers of the
government made it； he asks a question based upon an assumption which
is itself a falsehood； and I turn upon him and ask him the question；
when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in
relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world；
the only wise policy； the only policy that we can ever safely
continue upon that will ever give us peace； unless this dangerous
element masters us all and becomes a national institution；I turn
upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone。 I turn and ask
him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in
regard to it。 He has himself said he introduced a new policy。 He
said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year； 1858。
I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it。
I ask； too； of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again
place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it。
I ask you； when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and
slave States at war； when the institution was placed in that attitude
by those who made the Constitution； did they make any war？ If we had
no war out of it when thus placed； wherein is the ground of belief
that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy？ Have
we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis？ I
maintain that we have not。 I have proposed nothing more than a
return to the policy of the fathers。
I confess； when I propose a certain measure of policy； it is not
enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result； but
it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that
result。 I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view。 I have not
only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict
between the States； but I have tried to show by fair reasoning； and I
think I have shown to the minds of fair men； that I propose nothing
but what has a most peaceful tendency。 The quotation that I happened
to make in that Springfield Speech； that 〃a house divided against
itself cannot stand；〃 and which has proved so offensive to the judge；
was part and parcel of the same thing。 He tries to show that variety
in the democratic institutions of the different States is necessary
and indispensable。 I do not dispute it。 I have no controversy with
Judge Douglas about that。 I shall very readily agree with him that
it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here
in Illinois； where we have no cranberries； because they have a
cranberry law in Indiana； where they have cranberries。 I should
insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia
the right to enact oyster laws； where they have oysters； because we
want no such laws here。 I understand； I hope； quite as well as Judge
Douglas or anybody else； that the variety in the soil and climate and
face of the country； and consequent variety in the industrial
pursuits and productions of a country； require systems of law
conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country。 I
understand quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a
barrel of flour more than we want； and the Louisianians raise a
barrel of sugar more than they want； it is of mutual advantage to
exchange。 That produces commerce； brings us together； and makes us
better friends。 We like one another the more for it。 And I
understand as well as Judge Douglas； or anybody else； that these
mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the
different parts of this Union； that instead of being a thing to
〃divide the house；〃figuratively expressing the Union；they tend to
sustain it； they are the props of the house； tending always to hold
it up。
But when I have admitted all this； I ask if there is any parallel
between these things and this institution of slavery？ I do not see
that there is any parallel at all between them。 Consider it。 When
have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the
cranberry laws of Indiana； or the oyster laws of Virginia； or the
pine…lumber laws of Maine； or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar；
and Illinois flour？ When have we had any quarrels over these things？
When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is
an element of discord in this Union？ We have sometimes had peace；
but when was it？ It was when the institution of slavery remained
quiet where it was。 We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it
has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not。 I ask； then；
if experience does not speak in thunder…tones telling us that the
policy which has given peace to the country heretofore； being
returned to； gives the greatest promise of peace again。 You may say；
and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing； that all this
difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere
agitation of office…seekers and ambitious Northern politicians。 He
th