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！
the Dred Scott decision； that the people of the Territories can still
somehow exclude slavery。 The first thing I ask attention to is the
fact that Judge Douglas constantly said； before the decision； that
whether they could or not； was a question for the Supreme Court。 But
after the court had made the decision he virtually says it is not a
question for the Supreme Court； but for the people。 And how is it he
tells us they can exclude it？ He says it needs 〃police regulations；〃
and that admits of 〃unfriendly legislation。〃 Although it is a right
established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave
into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property； yet
unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation；
and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation； they can
practically exclude him。 Now； without meeting this proposition as a
matter of fact； I pass to consider the real constitutional
obligation。 Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face
before me； and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial
Legislature。 The first thing he will do will be to swear that he
will support the Constitution of the United States。 His neighbor by
his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial
legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right。 Can he
withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment
of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the
United States which he has sworn to support？ Can he withhold it
without violating his oath？ And； more especially； can he pass
unfriendly legislation to violate his oath？ Why； this is a monstrous
sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States！ There has
never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any
respectable man on earth。 I do not believe it is a constitutional
right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States。 I believe
the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it。 Judge
Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision。
But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself
stands。 I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine
uttered from the mouth of a respectable man。
I suppose most of us （I know it of myself） believe that the people of
the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave
law；that is a right fixed in the Constitution。 But it cannot be
made available to them without Congressional legislation。 In the
Judge's language； it is a 〃barren right；〃 which needs legislation
before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it
is guaranteed。 And as the right is constitutional； I agree that the
legislation shall be granted to it； and that not that we like the
institution of slavery。 We profess to have no taste for running and
catching niggers； at least； I profess no taste for that job at all。
Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law？ Because I do
not understand that the Constitution； which guarantees that right；
can be supported without it。 And if I believed that the right to
hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution
with the right to reclaim fugitives； I should be bound to give it the
legislation necessary to support it。 I say that no man can deny his
obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a
Territory； who believes it is a constitutional right to have it
there。 No man can； who does not give the Abolitionists an argument
to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a
Fugitive State law。 Try it now。 It is the strongest Abolition
argument ever made。 I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct；
then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a
constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his
runaway returned。 No one can show the distinction between them。 The
one is express； so that we cannot deny it。 The other is construed to
be in the Constitution； so that he who believes the decision to be
correct believes in the right。 And the man who argues that by
unfriendly legislation； in spite of that constitutional right；
slavery may be driven from the Territories； cannot avoid furnishing
an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return
fugitives； and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right
of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive。 I do not know how such
an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this； but I defy
anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to
estimating evidence and reasoning； and show that there is an iota of
difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and
the constitutional right to hold a slave； in a Territory； provided
this Dred Scott decision is correct； I defy any man to make an
argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a
slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory； that will
not equally； in all its length； breadth； and thickness； furnish an
argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law。 Why； there is not
such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas； after all！
End of Volume 4