’’ ’ ’’’斯’論
The Lincoln－Douglas Debates
1860 選’’’顯示’’’’’’斯’比賽
’
斯蒂’’A’’’’斯’’個國’’’立’’樣’基礎’’’’’個’都有’’據’’’’’’’奴隸’’’’’
’’’’’’’’’場’論’’正問’’’’’’’’’’’奴隸’’視爲邪’’而’’’’’’不把它視爲邪’’
1858’’’’’伊’諾伊’’斯蒂’’’’’斯參議Ⅸ’選’國參議’’’’’’’’’斯’戰’’整個’’’圍內’’’’’’’’論’’’’斯’民’黨’國’’風雲’’’而’’’’本’’’’’’’成’’’’’’’民’’’’職Ⅸ等等’’’’’戰’提問’’’’’’方喝’’’論僅集中’’個問’’奴隸’’
’’’斯(1813－1861)生’’’’’’’’歲’’’伊’諾伊’’’’歲’’選衆議’’’’’斯’’’天’’說’’雖’身’’’’’’“’’’巨’”而’’’1846’’’’’斯’選參議’’’’熱鼓’領’’’’由’’部領’’’引’’’’’
準’裏’’允’實’奴隸’’’’’論’’’’斯’l 854’領’’’’’堪薩斯’內’’斯’’’’’’’’’’’’’蘇裏妥’’’’允’當’’民’’選擇’
’’’斯’爲’’’準’’’民應’’投票’’’’實’奴隸’’’’’’’說奴隸’不該’’’’’’奴隸’’’’’方’’’’’堅’’爲奴隸’’邪’’’而’’’斯’’樣堅’’堅’說國’’生’’’’重民衆’’’’’’’’’奴隸’’’’’妨’
’’最終贏’’公衆投票’’’選’失敗’(當’參議Ⅸ由立’機關選’産生而不由公衆投票産生)’’次’論’’成爲’’黨’國領’’’’’及1860’’統’選’’’’’
’’’交’’1858’10月15日’伊’諾伊’’’爾’’’’
’’’斯’’場白
’’’’’生’我’’’選’’’個月’間’’’’’6月16日’’’黨’’’’’斯普’菲爾’’’’提’’’’生’爲’們’候選’’選’國參議Ⅸ’當’’’’’’’’說’提’’’’’解’’’黨’’條’’及’’場’’中’’採’’立場’
’’’生’言’’’’’樣’’首’’’個’’不’’有’’實’奴隸’有’’’由’分裂’’’’’’’’儘管我們’’’本’’’’樣’排’’它們’不都變爲’由’’’不都變爲奴隸’’’不’’’樣’’不’’那樣’’不’’個國’’不’’續生’’’裏我’’’原’原’’’們轉’’’’’’’’提’’第’’’’’國最高’’’’戰’’爲’’’’’’萊’’斯’’裁’’’’’提’’’反對那項裁’’’由’’它剝奪’’’國憲’’’’’黑’’’’’’’’’爲憲’條款’’必須’證’’個’’公民’有’’公民應有’’’’’’’’’豁’’’
7月10日我’’’’’’對’’哥’’民’’’’講’’言中我’’我’目’’’’伊’諾伊’’’民’續’’我’國’’’’’’’’’’那次’說中’我’’’’生提’’論’’’’’’’論’’樣’我們之間’論’’’’’晰’’’’’對’’’生’斯普’菲爾’提’’’個’’’我’’’哥’’言反駁’’’第’天’7月11日’’’’生’’’哥’答’我’’’’’’’’解釋’’’次重申’’斯普’菲爾’’說中’立場’’’’哥’’說中’’’’比’’’’’’’’’’’關’黑’’白’平等’’’’爲’’證’’立場’’採用’’夫喬伊’’’’’’’’’奴’’’說’提’’’’本’’部’中部衆’熟’’論’’’’’’’’’’立’言’’稱’’天賦’由’平等’那麽黑’’平等’’不’剝奪’’’’’’’們應該’有’種’’’’’’言中堅’說’’立’言’’’’’’生’平等’條款中’’’黑’’’’’’還說’’’允’’個’’爲本條款不’’黑’’那麽’’’’’’’爲它不’’’’’’’說應該
摒棄’有’’’’’’區分’種族’種族’區分’我們應該採’’’立’言’’立場’’’’’生’平等’
’樣’’’’生’我本’之間’’對’個問’’’’’論’本’’民對我們衆目’’之’’接’’’’個’期裏’’’’哥’說’我們第’次’奧塔華市’’’’’間’’’我’’’中部’縣區裏都對’批’聽衆’’’言’’我’’說中’我’論’緊扣’採’’’個立場’反駁’關’’個國’不’照我們’’原’’’排分爲’’’由’’’’奴’’方式’’’’’’’’反駁’由’’萊’’斯’’裁’而對最高’’’’伐’反駁’’說’’’立’言’關’’’生’平等’提’’’’’’用
’黑’而不單單’白’’’’’’我’’’場’說中’我分’’’’生’’個’’’’’’我’爲’’’’中’’’’本錯’’第’’’對’’關’’個’’’反’’’之’’分裂之’’’’’’種’條’我反駁’’’給我們憲’’不朽’’’’’’黑’我’’說’’我’’重申’’’’次’調’照我’’我們’’’’夠’照我們’’’國’分爲部分’由’部分’奴’’方式永’’’’’’’個’都有’’據’’’’’’’’’止’’除還’’’奴隸’’’個’’’’立’’’’’’堅實基礎’’’’’有’調整’’’’方體’’’應’’體情’’’項’’’據’’樣’’解’’望’’’’有’’’’’’’’’’’’必須有’不’’’’’’方及當’’體’’它’需’’’’’’’’我們’’創’’個’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’不’用’’’羅’’’’饒’’場’’們當’’’’’正’我們’’’’楚’樣’’’伊’諾伊’’’’’原’’’’’’不’用’’’福尼’’’’區’’們’’’’’Ⅸ’’遼闊’國’裏’由’’’’’候’’’’’’種’樣’’必須有’應’樣’’方’’’’策’’’’’’’應’’’’情’’需’’由’’個’’’’個國’’立’基礎’’’’’個’都有’’據’’’’’對奴隸’及任’’’問’做’’’’而’’不應’’’’’’’策’’不應對’橫’’’’
’’’’答
’’’斯’’’’我們’’’’’我們’’’’’奴隸’’’由’’’’’不’’實’應該’’’’說’’’’’’’奴隸’本身’正’’’’’由憲’’’’’’’立’’而’實’’’’’’們’’奴隸’’’’我們之中’’對’’實’’’’’’創’’’’’’中’’們’’’’個’’’’’’’不盡’’’之’’’們’’’奴隸’’’’而’’’’它’’’爲立’’’它’’難’’’’實’絕’’’’’當’’’斯’’問我爲什麽我們不’’’’’排’那樣’’’’’’奴隸’’’由’’’’’’’問’’’立’’個本身’’錯’’’’’’’’’我對’提’個問’’我們’’’’’採’’’’’’我們中’’個’’有關’’策’’’’最’’’策’唯’’智’’策’唯’’由我們’’’’’實’’’策’永遠給’我們’平’’策’’除’我們讓’個’’’’’統’我們’有’’成爲’國’’’’’’’那麽我’問’爲什麽’不’’個’策原樣’’?我’問’爲什麽’’提’’它有關’’個’’策?’’’說’’提’’’個’’策’’’’不論奴’黑’’’’’’公正還’邪’’’我還’’望我們’’
準’’’’樣’情’’白’’找’’們’’園－’找’’塊’們’改善’境’’方’’那裏’們’’身’’’’’’’’’’提高生’條件’我’望’’’’’僅僅’(正’我’’’’方說’’那樣’’’裏我還’說)對’生’’我們之間’’’’’民而言’’’’’對’不論身’’’’’由’白’而言’’’’’’白’’’’那裏不論’’斯’貝普提斯’’’’裏’還’’’’任’’’’都’找’’’園’’’’’’生’’
’’’’場’我曾提’’’而我不妨’提’’我’’爲’’’’斯’’’我之間’論’之’竟’’’說我’’’由’’’奴’之間’’戰’’’’’我們之間’什麽’’’’’’’我’’白’種族’黑’種族之間’立’種完善’’’’’’平等’’’’有什麽’’’’’’都不’’正’論’’而’’’斯’’’’圖’它們’’’論’’’我’有’’’’’’’’實’據’’’場’論’’正問’’’’’’’’心’’’壓’’問’’’’’’’’’奴隸’’視爲邪’’而’’’’’’不把它視爲邪’’視’個國’’奴隸’’爲邪’’’’’’’黨’’’’’們’’切’動’’切論’都圍繞’個’’而’’’’們’有’’’都由’個’’而’’’’們’奴隸’’視爲’’’’’’’’’’邪’’’’’’’種’’’’’’’們對’個’’’我們中’’成’實’有著正’’’識’’’’’當’方式’脫它有’’難’’還’’’’個問’’’’’有憲’’’’任’’而’由’對’’問’有正’’’識’’們渴望’’’’’條方’’’’奴隸’不’産生’’’’’’’們堅’’爲’奴隸’應’盡’’’’’’’爲邪’’’’’而’它’爲邪’’’’’’個方’’應’’它不’’’’’’們還渴望’’’條方’’’邪’’奴隸’’’’’用’平’方式予’終結’’’’’我’’解’’們關’’個問’’’’’’們’有’’’’’們’有’論’’’’都不’’個’圍’我曾’說’’’裏還’重申’’’’’我們’中有誰不’爲奴隸’’’我提及’任’方面’邪’’’’’’錯’’’而不應屬’我們’邊’’’我們’中有誰對奴隸’’’’不’’’而’視它’我們中’’成’實’’視立’’’當’方式’脫它’’難’’視它’’’’憲’’’’任’’’我們’’’’’’錯’’’’我們’實際’動中不予’’’情’’’我們之中’’’不當’’
關’’奴隸’’爲邪’’’’’’’蔓’’個問’我還有話’說’除’’個奴隸’’’’’還有什麽’’’’’’’’個國’’生’嗎?’我們中間’什麽’’’視爲最’’’’’?’我們’’’’由’’’’除’’個奴隸’’’’’還有什麽’’’’’我們’’由’’’’?’’’’’實’話’那’’’’’’’’奴隸’’’’之蔓’’’’壯’’’’改善’’’’’’?’身’’著’個’’’’’’’’’它割除’’爲’樣做’’’’’’’’’而’’療’方’’’’不’’’’’’’’’’散’’’’身’’不’’’’’視爲邪’’’’’’當方式’’’’’’種’’它’邪’’’平’方式’’抑’它’’散’不讓它蔓’’原’它’不’’’’’
準’裏’’’’’種’平’方式’傳統’方式’我們’’輩爲’種方式’’用給我們樹立’’’’
’’’方面’我’說’有種’’’爲奴隸’’不’邪’’’’’今天民’黨’’’’我’不’’說’’有’種’’’’都’’’’奴隸’’正’’’’’’’’’有那’’’’’它’正’’’’’及’有像’’’斯’’那樣’’視爲’關緊’而不’示它’正’還’邪’’’’’’種’匯’成’’’不把奴隸’’視爲邪’’
對’’種’’’民’黨’方’不’’忍’們對’邪’’’’’’’’’言’’’’’最’’’’示’’’’’’斯’’’論’爲’’’’說’“不’’奴隸’”’
準’裏“’’’還’’’’”’對’’’種說’’我本’’不’’’’用’’示’個’對’個問’’’’’還’僅用’’示’’’望’立’’國’’方’’’’對解釋我’’’’樣有價值’任’’個’都’’像’那樣說’’’’個’不’爲奴隸’有什麽邪’’’’’而’’’’符’邏輯’說’’’話’’’’’實’’’奴隸’’邪’’’爲’’’符’邏輯’說’對’種邪’’’’’還’’’’滿不’’’’’’說’不’’’件’關緊’’’情’’’還’’’’’’’必須符’邏輯’’’件正’’’’’’件邪’’’’之間做’選擇’’’’斯’’’’說’’’’個’方需’奴隸’’們’有’擁有奴隸’’’奴隸’不’邪’’’’們’’’擁有奴隸’’’’奴隸’’邪’’’’’不’說’們有’’’’’說’’據對等’’’’奴隸正像’’’産’樣允’’’’個’’
準’’’’奴隸’’’’産’’區’’話’’樣說’’’’符’邏輯’’’’它’’它’産’對等’話’’個論’’完’符’邏輯’’’’’’’堅’’邊’邪’’而’’邊’公正’’那麽公正’邪’之間’’有什麽’比’’’們’’’’’尾’民’黨’方’細細’’’’’’不論’體’’’’’文’中’體’’’萊’’斯’’裁’中’體’’交談言論中’還’體’’’精’’’言體’論’中’’奴隸’有什麽邪’’樣’’’都’’心謹’’排除’’’
’’’論’’’正’’’’’’’’’斯’’’我’’戰偃’’鼓’’’續’’’’個國’’問’’它’’種原’’’正’’邪’’’之間’’’’圍內永不休止’’鬥’’’種原’’太’’’’’’’對’’’永遠鬥’’’’’中之’’’類’’’’’’’’個’’’授’’’’’’’’’’種原’不論’’種面目’’都本’不移’它’著’’’’’精’說’’“’們’’’’辛勞’!’們掙’麵’’我’用’’”它不管’’種’式’’’不論’’’’個’’踐踏本國’民
’’’’’’之’’還’’個種族’奴’’’個種族’’解’都’’那個’橫暴’’原’’’
The Lincoln－Douglas Debates
Douglas’
Opening Speech
It is now
nearly four months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and myself commenced.
One the sixteenth of June the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield and
nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, and he,
on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down what he understood to
be the Republican creed, and the platform on which he proposed to stand during
the contest.
The
principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln’s were; First, that this
government could not endure permanently divided into free and slave States, as
our fathers made it; that they must all become one thing or all become the
other,--otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his
opinions almost in the identical language he used. His second proposition was a
crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott
decision, urging as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that
it deprived the Negroes of the rights and benefits of that clausein the
Constitution of the United States which guarantees to the citizens of each State
all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several
States.
On the
tenth of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people of Chicago,
in which I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the people of Illinois to
sustain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with
Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear
and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the
speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him
at
Chicago.
On the next day, the eleventh of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago,
explaining at some length, and reaffirming the positions which he had taken in
his Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had
before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with
the white man. He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy
and Codding and other Abolition lecturers had made familiar in the northern and
central portions of the State: to wit, that the Declaration of Independence
having declared all men free and equal, by divine law, also that negro equality
was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived. He insisted, in
that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the
clause asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that
if one man was allowed to take the position that it did not include the negro,
others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that
all these distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other
race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of
Independence, declaring that all men were created equal.
The issue
thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we went
before the people of the State. During the following seven weeks, between the
Chicago speeches and our first meeting at
Ottawa,
he and I addressed large assemblages of the people in many of the central
counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely to those three positions
which he had taken, controverting his proposition that this Union could not
exist as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, controverting
his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott
decision, and controverting his proposition that the Declaration of Independence
included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all
men to be created equal. . . . I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my
several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the
radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that this
government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a house divided
against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as slander upon the immortal
framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again
assert, that in my opinion our government can endure forever, divided into free
and slave States as our fathers made it,--each State having the right to
prohibit, abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This government was
made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each
State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; and that right
was conferred with the understanding and expectation that, inasmuch as each
locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct
local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests. Our
fathers knew when they made the government that the laws and institutions which
were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice
plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the
laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the beautiful prairies of
Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They knew that
in a republic as broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate, and
interest, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws,--the
policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For
this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it
pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and the various
states were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy of
their neighbors.
Lincoln's
Reply
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 difficulty--the
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. . . .
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 over--in 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
introducing 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 controversy--the one
pressing upon every mind--is 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 as 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 sometime, as being wrong. 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 thrown about it, that man is misplaced
if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He
is not placed properly with us.
On this
subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word.
Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this
very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our
own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity,
save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose
to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery--by spreading it out and
making it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able
to cut it out, lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to
engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating
what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a
wrong,--restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new
countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the
old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example.
On the
other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong.
This is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every
man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class
will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge
Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong.
These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look
upon it as a wrong. . . .
The
Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest
breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by
some of Judge Douglas' arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up
or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that
expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments
on the subject or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It
is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything
wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it,
because no man can logically say he does not care whether a wrong is voted up or
voted down. He may say he does not care whether an indifferent thing is voted up
or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong
thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have
them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say
people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality slaves
should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is
strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it
and other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if you
insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a
comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the
Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the
statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it
takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it
everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
That is
the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these
poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal
struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world.
They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of
time and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of
humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in
whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work
and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes,
whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own
nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an
apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle....
’ |