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！
patterns for future Territorial legislation； and that this Nebraska
Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all。
The Judge tells； in proceeding； that he is opposed to making any
odious distinctions between free and slave States。 I am altogether
unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious
distinctions between the free and slave States。 But there is still a
difference； I think； between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in
this。 I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and
his friends； and the Republicans on the contrary； is； that the Judge
is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty；
that he is in favor of eradicating； of pressing out of view； the
questions of preference in this country for free or slave
institutions； and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the
idea that there is any wrong in slavery。 Everything that emanates
from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully
excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery。 All
their arguments； if you will consider them； will be seen to exclude
the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery。 If you
will take the Judge's speeches； and select the short and pointed
sentences expressed by him；as his declaration that he 〃don't care
whether slavery is voted up or down；〃you will see at once that this
is perfectly logical； if you do not admit that slavery is wrong。 If
you do admit that it is wrong； Judge Douglas cannot logically say he
don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down。 Judge Douglas
declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to
have it。 He can say that logically； if he says that there is no
wrong in slavery； but if you admit that there is a wrong in it； he
cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong。 He
insists that upon the score of equality the owners of slaves and
owners of propertyof horses and every other sort of property
should be alike； and hold them alike in a new Territory。 That is
perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are
equally founded in right。 But if you admit that one of them is
wrong； you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong。
And from this difference of sentiment；the belief on the part of one
that the institution is wrong； and a policy springing from that
belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong；
and this other sentiment； that it is no wrong； and a policy sprung
from that sentiment； which will tolerate no idea of preventing the
wrong from growing larger； and looks to there never being an end to
it through all the existence of things；arises the real difference
between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the
Republicans on the other。 Now； I confess myself as belonging to that
class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral； social； and
political evil； having due regard for its actual existence amongst us
and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way；
and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown
about it； but； nevertheless； desire a policy that looks to the
prevention of it as a wrong； and looks hopefully to the time when as
a wrong it may come to an end。
Judge Douglas has again； for； I believe； the fifth time； if not the
seventh； in my presence； reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or
combination between the National Democrats and Republicans。 What
evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not； inasmuch as
he never favors us with any。 I have said upon a former occasion； and
I do not choose to suppress it now； that I have no objection to the
division in the Judge's party。 He got it up himself。 It was all his
and their work。 He had； I think； a great deal more to do with the
steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr。 Buchanan had；
though at last； when they reached it； they quarreled over it； and
their friends divided upon it。 I am very free to confess to Judge
Douglas that I have no objection to the division； but I defy the
Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that
division； unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely
saying so。 I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to
understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that
division。 Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the
Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore？ I guess
you do。 Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also
that he was at the time very glad of it； and then he will be able to
see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans。
What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats； you then thought
of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions。 That is all there is of it。
But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there
is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the
National Democrats； I now want to enter my protest against receiving
him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject。 I want to
call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first
one of these
debates； at Ottawa； on the 21st of August。 In order to fix extreme
Abolitionism upon me； Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which
he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention； in
October； 1854； at Springfield； Illinois； and he declared I had taken
part in that Convention。 It turned out that although a few men
calling themselves an anti…Nebraska State Convention had sat at
Springfield about that time； yet neither did I take any part in it；
nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge
Douglas read。 So apparent had it become that the resolutions which
he read had not been passed at Springfield at all； nor by a State
Convention in which I had taken part； that seven days afterward； at
Freeport； Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles
H。 Lanphier； editor of the State Register； and Thomas L。 Harris；
member of Congress in that district； and he promised in that speech
that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter。
Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield； and I presume has
made the investigation； but a month has passed since he has been
there； and； so far as I know； he has made no report of the result of
his investigation。 I have waited as I think sufficient time for the
report of that investigation； and I have some curiosity to see and
hear it。 A fraud； an absolute forgery was committed； and the
perpetration of it was traced to the three；Lanphier； Harris； and
Douglas。 Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate
any one of them； is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show。
It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were
published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October；
1854； as being the resolutions of an anti…Nebraska Convention which
had sat in that same month of October； at Springfield。 But it is
also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then；
and the question is still behind； which of the three； if not all of
them； committed that forgery。 The idea that it was done by mistake
is absurd。 The article in the Illinois State Register contains part
of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention； showing that
the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him； and
purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention
and fraudulently substituted the others。 Lanphier then； as now； was
the editor of the Register； so that there seems to be but little room
for his escape。 But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had
less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other
two。 The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates
and elect Harris to Congress； and that object was known to be
exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time。 Harris and Douglas
were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session； and
although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register；
subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon
that Convention。
The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion； both
Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to
put it to new uses。 As the fisherman's wife； whose drowned husband
was brought home with his body full of eels； said when she was asked
what was to be done with him； 〃Take the eels out and set him again；〃
so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out
of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election； and set
the fraud again more than once。 On the 9th of July； 1856； Douglas
attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate
of the United States； as will appear from the appendix o