|
’’’’’’’
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
’’’學’’’說
The Cooper Union Speech
我們’堅’正’’’’’’’’’個’’’引’’敢’照我們’’解’那樣’把我們’’任’’’’’
’1860’’奪’’黨’統候選’’提’中’’’’’個不’’’’’’’’伊’諾伊’之’’’’’’’’’’個’’’’’’’斯’’論引’’們對’’’’’’’’1859’’’’中’部’個’’’’說’1860’2月27日’’’市’’’學’’’對’’’聽衆’’’說’’次’說’’打’’’’’’’’’’黨’統候選’提’’’’’’’’’’H’蘇厄’’’’緊接著’’’’勝’之’’’’’’’’’蘭’說’’’’’引’’國’’部那’關鍵’’’’’’1860’5月’’’哥’’’’’黨’國’’’’’’’’’第’次投票中獲’提’’
六’’’’H’L’’’還’爲那次’’’學’’’說’’’“’’’’統職’”’參議Ⅸ斯蒂’’A’’’’斯(’’不’’成爲民’黨提’’’統候選’’’’統’選中’’’’對手)曾’言創’’個國’’’輩們’’’’’’奴隸’’’’’’’’學’’’說中’對’’種說’’示’疑’’’’’’’’’’’’說中’奴隸’’個問’’’’’細分’’那’’’憲’’’’’圖’’’’’’’對’’’圖’’’’’百’’’’’’學’還’續’論’’那’憲’’’’們’’’結’奴隸’’
’’據’’’’報’報導’’’’天’參議Ⅸ’’’斯’生’’亥’’哥’布’’’’’’講中曾說’
“當我們’’輩組’管轄我們’’個’’’’’們跟我們’樣’解’個問’’’’比我們’’’解’’’’”
我完’贊’’種說’’’’’’爲我’’’講’’個’’’我之’’’樣做’’爲它爲’’黨’’民’黨中’參議Ⅸ’’’斯’生爲首’那’’之間’’論提’’’個準’’’’’’’’’
誰’我們’’憲’’’輩們’?我’爲’原’文件’簽’’那“’’’”’’’’’’稱爲我們組’’’’’’那個部分’’輩’’
’據引文說那’’輩們跟我們’樣’解’個問’’’’比我們’’’解’’’’那麽’個問’’什麽’?
’個問’’’樣’’’方’’’’邦’’’’當分’’’憲’中有什麽條文’’’’止’邦’’’’邦’’’控’奴隸’?
對’’個問’’’’’斯’爲答’’’’’’而’’黨’’爲’’’’’’種’’’’’’對立’’成’個問’’’個問’正’那’引文’’稱’我們’’輩比我們’’解’問’’
’’我們不妨問’樣’個問’’’’那“’’’”’’’們之中任’’’曾遵照’個問’’’’’’’們’’麽做’’那’們’’麽做’’’’們’’麽’’’那種’’’’解’’
’1874’’’憲’産生’’’’當’’國’’有’’’區’’’’’有’’’領’’那’’國’’’邦’議’’’’’’’’那’’’’’止奴隸’’問’’’’參’’’憲’’那“’’’”’簽’’中’’’’’那個議’’成Ⅸ’’參’’對’奴問’’投票’’’’’個’中’羅傑’’曼(Roger
Sherman)’托馬斯’米夫’ (Thomas Mifflin)’休’’’森 (Hugh
Williamson) 都投票贊成’止奴隸’’’’’’’據’們’’解’’方’’’’邦’’’分離’任’’’什麽都’有’由’止’邦’’’’邦領’內控’奴隸’’’’個’中’’’個’詹’斯’麥’’’
(James McHenry) 投票反對’止奴隸’’’’’’由’’種原’’’’爲投票贊成’止奴隸’’不’當’’
’1787’’仍’’’憲’産生之’’’’’’憲’議正’’’’’憲’’而’’’’’’區’領’仍’’’國’有’唯’領’’’’’個’候’’止奴隸’’問’’’次提’’’’邦’議’’’’’’憲’’簽’’那“’’’”’中’有’’參’’那次邦’議’’而’參’’’奴問’’投票’’’’們’’’’布’’
(William Blount)’’’’菲尤 (William Few)’’’都投票贊成’止奴隸’’’
’1789’’’據憲’’’’第’次邦’議’’’’個’’實’1787’’’’’’中’’’’’領’’’止奴隸’’’個’’’議’’由那“’’’”’簽’’之’’托馬斯’菲’’’斯
(Thomas Fitzsimmons)
’議’報’’’’當’’由賓’’尼’’’衆議’議Ⅸ’議’’’’個階’’有’說’’反對’話’最’’有投贊成票’反對票’’’’’’’’’等’’’體’’’’’’’次議’中’’’原’憲’’“’’’”’’輩中有’六’參’’’們’’’翰’蘭’
(John Langdon)’尼’’斯’’爾曼(Nicholas Gilman)’’’’S’’翰森
(Wm. S. Johnson)’羅傑’’曼 (Roger Sherman)’羅’’’莫裏斯
(Robert Morris)’托馬斯’菲’’’斯 (Thos. Fitzsimmons)’’’’菲尤
(William Few)’’’’’’’’溫 (Abraham Baldwin)’’弗斯’’
(Rufus King)’’’’’滕森 (William Patterson)’喬’’’萊’
(George Clymer)’’’’’巴’’ (Richard Bassett)’喬’’裏’
(George Read)’皮爾斯’巴’勒 (Pierce Butler)’丹厄爾’’羅爾
(Daniel Carrol)’詹’斯’麥’遜 (James Madison) ’’
還有當’’’國’統喬’’華盛’’’那“’’’”’簽’’之’’’’’統’’’批准’提’’’’面簽’’’樣’完成’’之’爲’’而生’’’’’而’’’’’’據華盛’’’解’’邦’’’’方’’’分離’’憲’中’任’’’都’’’止’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’
原’’憲’’’’不’’’’羅’’’’把’’’’’’’’那塊’方割給’邦’’’’’’’喬’’’’把’’’’’’比’’’’巴馬’’那’’’割給’邦’’’’’’個割’’’’’割’’’都’’’’個條件’’’邦’’不’’’割’’’’’止奴隸’’除’之’’當’’’割’’’’實際’’’奴隸’’’’’情’’’國’爲’管’’’’方’’’’’’’方內絕對’止奴隸’’’’國’實際’’’’’’’對奴隸’’’控’’’’’’那’’方’’控’’’’’’’1798’’國’組’’’’比
準’’’組織’’中’國’’’’款’釋’’’’奴隸’’止’’國’’’任’’方’奴隸’’’個準’’’個’’’’’’’’’’’’’’原’憲’’那“’’’”’簽’’中有’’’那個議’裏’’們’’’翰’蘭’
(John Langdon)’喬’’裏’ (George Read) ’’’’’’’’溫
(Abraham Baldwin)’’
’1803’’’邦’’’’’路’斯’那那’’’’’’我們’’’’’’’’中獲’’’’’’’塊路’斯’那’’’國’’’’1804’’國’’’’’路’斯’那’’那部分’方’’領’組織’’’那塊’’之中’’奧爾’’’個’當’’舊’市’還有’’’當’’’鎮’’’’’’’’’方’奴隸’’’’徹’’’’民’’’’’’國’’’有’領’’’中’止奴隸’’’國’實際’’’’’’’控’’奴隸’’’而’比’’’’比做’’’顯’’’’’’對奴隸問’’’’’條款’’
(1)不’’’國’’奴隸’那’方’
(2)不’’1798’5月1日’’’’’’國’奴隸’’那個’方’
(3)除’奴隸’’奴隸’’’’’’’’’爲’’’’用’任’奴隸都不准’’’’’’有’反’’’情’’都’’’’款’’’’’奴隸釋’’
’個’’’’’’’’’’’’’’個’’’那次議’裏有’’’“’’’”’簽’’之中’’們’’’’’’’’’溫
(Abraham Baldwin)’喬’森’戴’ (Jonathan Dayton)’’
’18l9’’1820’之間提’’’蘇裏問’’’’’’’’’個’’問’’’個方面’國’’’’’投贊成票’反對票’’’’次’’’“’’’”’簽’’中有’’’’’弗斯’’
(Rufus King) ’’’斯’平’尼 (Charles Pinckney) ’’’那次議’’成Ⅸ’’’生堅’’投票贊成’除奴隸’’反對任’妥’’而平’尼’生’投票反對’止奴隸’而’’反對任’妥’’’
我’提’’’’情’僅僅’’“’’’”’’’’們中’任’’個’’’個’接’問’’採’’’動’’’’我’’’’’’’
那麽’’’’我們那“’’’”’組’’管轄我們’’’’’輩之中有’’’’’’據’們’公務職’’手’’’’’’’’’’’那個問’採’’’動’’個問’正’’面引文’’’’“’們跟我們’樣’解’而’’’比我們’’’解’’’”’問’’’們當中’’’’’’’’顯’’“’’’”’中’’數’’對’個問’採’’’樣’’動’’’’據’們’’解’’方’’’’邦’’’任’’當分離’’’’們親’’’’’’支援’憲’中’任’’’’’’止’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’那’們’犯有粗鄙’’’錯’’’’偽証’’’’’’’’’採’’’動’’動勝’’談’而’據’種’任’採’’’動’’勝’’談’’’
那“’’’”’簽’’中剩’’’六’’’我’’解’’’有’’任’’錄’’’們對’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’個’接問’’’解’’’有’由’’’’’’們’’解曾’’’’’那麽’們對’個問’’’解’不’’’’’’們那’’’個’’有什麽不’’
爲’’’’’引文’除’’’原’憲’’那“’’’”’輩之’’我有’略’’任’’’’’’示’’解’不管’們有’麽顯赫’而’爲’’樣’由’我’略’’’“’’’”’中’任’’’’奴隸’’個’’問’’’’方面’’示’’解’’’我們’’’’’’’’諸’對’奴隸’賣’’及奴隸’’’’’’策等’’方面’問’’採’’’動’’’’’’’那麽’我們’’’’’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’個’接問’’’’那’六’曾’採’’動’話’’們’’’’那’’’’採’’樣’’動’’那’六’有’個’’’當’最著’’反奴隸’’’之中’’’’’蘭’’博’
(Dr. Franklin)’’歷’’’’’爾’ (Alexander Hamilton)
’’維諾爾’莫裏斯 (Gouverneur Morris) ’’據’’’’’中’有’個’’’’’’’’反’’’有’’’除’’’’羅’’’’翰’’’’’
(John Rutledge)’
我們那“’’’”’’’’原’憲’’’輩中’’有’’’’’’’’’顯’’數’’’’’爲’邦’’’’方’’’’當分離’’憲’中’任’條款都不’’止’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’而’有’’’’’’’有’樣’’解’’’疑問’’’我們那’’’’原’憲’’’輩們’’解’而’引文’’’’爲’們對’個問’’’解“比我們’’”’
我們完’’’假’那“’’’”’’’’原’憲’’’輩’’’’’六’’’’’正’’議Ⅸ’’’’’’’’’’’那’’’’’當’稱爲“組’’管轄我們’’’’’輩”’基’’種假’’我反對任’’’示’們’中任’’個’’’’’’生中曾’’’據’’’解’’邦’’’’方’’’’當分離’’’憲’中’任’條款’’’止’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’我還’’’’反對任’’’示’整個’’任’’個’著’’曾’本’’’之’(我’’’說’’本’’’’葉之’)曾’’’’’據’’’解’’方’’’’邦’’’’當分離’’’憲’中’任’條款’’止’邦’’’’邦領’’控’奴隸’’對’那’’稱’’止’’’我不僅’’’’“我們那’組’’管轄我們’’’’’輩們”’而’’’’組’’那個’’內’有’’’著’’’’’’’’’輩們’’’’讓’們’’找’’們’’’找’任’’個’’’’們’’’證據’
’’’’’’我’略爲防備’’’’解’我不’說我們’’’’目照’我們’’輩’做’任’’情’’樣做’’摒棄’今’驗中’有’幫’我們’解’’實’排斥’切’’’提高’我’’正’說’’’’’我們’’任’情’’’’我們’輩’’見’’策’我們’應當’據’’’證據’’’’論’’’’’’’’’’當’考’’’’之’還’’’’’’而’’’不’我們’’’’’們對’個問’’’解比我們’’’’’
’’’’’’們’’聽’話’’我’’們’不’’聽’’’我’對’方’說’’話’
我’對’們說’’們’爲’’’’情’’’公正’’’而我’爲’講’’’公正’’普’’質’’’們不比’’任’’’’’’’當’們說’我們’’黨’’’’們’’’我們’鄙’’’說最’’不比’’之’’’’
’們說我們’’方’’’’我們’’’’’’成’執’而’們有’任提’證據’’’們提’’們’證據’那’什麽證據’?’’我們黨’’們’’區’不’’’’’’’們’’區’不’選票’’完’’’實’’它’說’問’嗎?’’’說’問’’話’那麽’假’我們不改變原’而’’’’們’’區獲’選票’我們’不’’’方’’’’’個結論’們不’’不’’’’’’們’’遵’’個結論嗎?’’’’’’’’們’快’’’’我們不’’’方’’’’’’爲我們今’’’’們’’區獲’選票’那’’們’’’’’’實’’著’’們’證據’有觸及問’’’
’們有’’喜’當著我們’面賣’華盛’’’’’’’說中提’’對’方’’’警’’’華盛’提’那個警’不’’’’’’’爲’衆國’統’曾’贊’’簽’’’項國’’’’’’’
準’’止奴隸’’’項’’體’’’’’提’那個警’’’提’警’’那個’’’’’對’個問’’’策’而’’提’警’’’’’之’’’’’給’斐葉’’說’’爲’’’
準’’止奴隸’’個’智’措’’’’’示’望’’’由’’由’組成邦’’
’’’’’’’’’’’’’那’’’’’’’問’’’’’’’’方’’’那麽’華盛’’警’’’’’們手裏反對我們’’器’’還’我們手裏反對’們’’器?’’華盛’本’還’說話’’’竟’’’我們’’支援’’策’’犯有’方’’’’還’’’’們’’反對’’’策’’犯有’方’’’’’
’算’們’夠’’’’’’黨’組織’’對’們’有’’’’’?’’’爲’’’’種’’’改變’’’’’天’’’改變不’’’’’個國’有’種反對奴隸’’’見’’情’’少’’投’百五’’’票’我們’’’組織’’’’種’見’’情’’’種情’而’集’’’’’們’’把’個組織’’掉’’’毀不’’種情’’’支’’們’’’’’’立’’’’’’’’’隊’’們’’難打’’’’’’’’’們’打’它’用’’’’’那支’隊’情’’’投票’’’平’’而’’’’’’’’對’們’有什麽’’’?那’’種’’’概’’什麽’?像’翰’布’
(John Browns) 那樣’’’’爲’個’動減少還’’’’?
’而’’們寧’’’邦分裂’不甘心讓’剝奪憲’賦予’們’’’’
’聽’’有’’’’’’’’’我們提議僅’’數’’’’’剝奪憲’’文’’給’們’’’’情’’’’’’’’’種做’不完’正當’’我們不’提’’種’議’
當’們’’’’’’’’們’’’’示憲’給’們’’把奴隸’’’邦’準’’’把’們’’那裏’爲’們’’産’’’憲’裏’’有’’’’’種’’’’那個文件裏’’本’有提’’種’’’’反’’我們’不’爲憲’裏’’’’樣’種’’’’’’言’之’都’有’
那麽’’們’目’’說’’’’’’’’’’除’允’’們’’們’我們之間有’議’’’’’心’欲’解釋’’’實’憲’’不管’樣’’們’麽’’’’麽覆滅’
’說’’’’’們’對我們說’話’’’’們’說’對’’個有’議’憲’問’’最高’’正’’對’們有’’’’’不見’’’’’’’’’學’關’“’’’’見”’“’’”’’之間’區’不談’最高’’’’’少對’個問’給’們’’’’’’’’實質’’說’們’有憲’’’’’’’把奴隸’’’邦’
準’’’’把’們’’那裏’爲’們’’産’
我說’少’’’’’’’’’說’’’’’個分裂爲’’’’’’由’’’’’’數’’’’’們對’’’’’’’由’’’’不’’’由’’個’’’’樣’’’’’’那’’’’’個’’’支’’們對’’’’有不’’’’’而’它’’’’據’個不實之詞’’那個’見中’說’’“對奴隸’’産’’憲’’’’’’’’’’’’”
把憲’’細’’’’’’’’’’它裏面對奴隸’’産’’’有’’’’’’’’’’’’
’’’們’’用’’’見解說’種’’’文件裏’’’’獲’’’’’’樣’’’’說憲’裏’找不’“奴隸”’’找’不’“奴隸’”’個詞’’’’’’奴隸’奴隸’’類’’有關’“’産”’個詞’’有’文件中’’’奴隸’’方’都稱’爲“’”’’’’奴隸’對’’’’’’’’方’都稱爲“應’’勞’’勞’”’’稱爲’用勞’’勞’’’’“債務”’’樣’’’用當’’歷’’證’’用’種’’奴隸’奴隸’’方’’而不’’說’’’’有目’’’’’不讓憲’裏有’種’’把’當’産’’’’’
’’有’’情’’’’’不’’’爲’’有’由’’’個’’’除’’’馬’’’像’們那樣’’’’’’把它’爲’’’動’結論’’’最’’準’?’’’’們不’’忍’個’’黨’當選爲’統!’們說’’’’生那種情’’’們’’’’’邦’’們說’那’’’’’邦’’重’’’’落’我們’’!妙極’’’個’路’’用手’’’我’腦’’’’切齒’說’“’’’路錢’不’我’打’’’那’’’’’個殺’犯’”’’
’’’’’’’黨’說’’話’讓’個偉’’邦’有’部分都太太平平’’’’睦’’’’’最’’’’’’我們’’黨’應該盡’做’’’’’儘管我們’’’’’’’’不’’’用’’’’’方’不’’聽我們’話’我們還’’’’’考’’們’’’’’’’’’考’’我們’職’’’’’話應當接’’們’’’’我們’’據’們’說’’做’’切’’及’們’我們’端’原’’’質’盡’’’’’’’情’’’’們滿’’
’’’’準’’條件’’’們’’們’滿’嗎?我們’’’們’不’滿’’’’’們目’對我們’’切’難中’’’’有提’
準’’目’’’最’’’’’’’’反’’’今’證’我們’’’’’反’’’’’’們’滿’嗎?我們’’’們’不’滿’’’我們之’’’’’’爲我們’’’有’’’’’反有’’’’’’儘管我們’’’’’還’’不’’’攻擊’’難’
問’’’’’’竟什麽’’’’們滿’’?’’’個’’有’個’不’說奴隸’’錯’’’’’’們’’說奴隸’’正’’’而’’必須做’徹’’’不’’’’而’’’動’都’做’’’們’不’’忍我們’’’’’我們必須公’’’’’們’’’’’’’’斯參議Ⅸ’’煽動’亂’必須’’’’’實’’’切有關奴隸’’錯’’言論’’論’’’綱裏’’報’’’’講壇’’’’’’’’’’’都必須’止’我們必須’’喜喜’把’們’’’奴隸抓’’’’原’’我們必須’’’’由’’憲’’整個’’必須肅’’切反對奴隸’’’’’’有’樣做’’’’們’不’’爲’們’’切麻煩都’’我們’裏’’’’
’們’’’爲奴隸’’’’’’正’’’而’’’’’’高’’’’們’不’停止’’’國把奴隸’當’’種’’’’’’’’福’’’’’
我們’’有堅’奴隸’’錯’’’個立場’’正當’’止’種情’’’’奴隸’’正’’’’切反對奴隸’’言’’’爲’’’’憲’本身’’錯’’’必須’’’止’肅’’’’奴隸’’正’’’我們反對它推’’’國推’’’’’’’不’’’’’奴隸’’錯’’’’們’’’之推’’’’’’那’不’’’’’我們’爲奴隸’’正’’’’們’’切’’我們都’’答應’’’’們’爲奴隸’’錯’’’我們’’切’’’們’都’’答應’’們’爲奴隸’’正’’’我們’爲奴隸’’錯’’’’’’整個’端’’結’’們’爲奴隸’’正’’’’’難’’們’望把奴隸’當’正’’’’予’’分’’’’’’我們’爲奴隸’’錯’’’我們’’’們’’嗎?我們’’據’們’’’’投票反對我們’’’’’嗎?鑒
’我們’’’’’’’’’’’’’’任’我們’’樣做嗎?
雖’我們’爲奴隸’’錯’’’’’’實’奴隸’’’方’我們還’’’’它’’’爲那’’’它’國內實際’’’需’’’’’投票’’’止奴隸’’’難’我們’’’它’’’’
準’’’’’’’’由’’’’我們嗎?
’’我們’’任’不允’’樣’那麽’讓我們’’’’有’’堅’我們’’任’’’不’’那’’’’’著我們’精心策劃’詭’轉移我們’方’’’’詭’’’’’’’’’’’之間找’個中間立場’’’像找’個’不’’’’不’’’’’’樣’’心機’’’像對’個’有正’’’都’關心’問’採’“不’’”’’策’’像’’’邦’’’’’’正擁’’邦’’’’分裂’’’’把’’’原’’倒’’’不’’有’’’’改’反而’正’’’’改’’像’’’請華盛’’’’’懇’’們收’’’說’話’’’’’做’’’
’樣不’讓不實’’’’我們偏離我們’’任’’不’’’’’’’把我們’’’’’’’’’不敢’’我們’’任’我們’堅’正’’’’’’’’’個’’’引’’敢’像我們’’解’那樣’把我們’’任’’’’’
The Cooper Union Speech
In his speech
last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator
Douglas said:
"Our
fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this
question just as well, and even better, than we do now."
I fully
indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because
it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for the discussion between
Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. ...
Who were
our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed
the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of
the present Government. ...
What is
the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as
well, and even better, than we do now?
It is
this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in
the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government control as to slavery in our
Federal Territories?
Upon
this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This
affirmative and denial form an issue; and this issue--this question--is
precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we.
Let us
now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this
question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they expressed that
better understanding.
In 1784,
three years before the Constitution, the United States then owning the
Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had
before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of
the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress,
and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh
Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding,
no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly
forbade the Federal Government control as to Slavery in federal territory. The
other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the prohibition, showing that
for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it.
In 1787,
still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing
it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by
the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory
again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the
"thirty-nine," who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and
voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both
voted for the prohibition . . .
In 1789,
by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to
enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the
Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the
"thirty-nine"--Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives
from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition,
and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a
unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine"
fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas
Oilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Ruflis King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard
Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carrol, James Madison. . . .
Again,
George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the
United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its
validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government control as to slavery in federal territory.
No great
while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to
the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and
a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of
Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the
ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the
ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country.
Under these circumstances. Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did
not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with
it--take control of it--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress
organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they
prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place without the
United States by fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed
both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of
the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon,
George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. ...
In 1803
the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial
acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was
acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial organization
to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans,
lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were
other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and
thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial
Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it--take control of it--in a
more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The
substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:
(1) That
no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.
(2) That
no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States
since the first day of May, 1798.
(3) That
no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as
a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the
law, and freedom to the slave.
This act
also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it there
were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. .
. .
In
1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas
and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general
question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles Pinckney--were
members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and
against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery
prohibition and against all compromises. . . .
The cases
I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon
the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. ...
Here,
then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the
Government under which we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and
their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they
"understood just as well, and even better, than we do now"; and twenty-one of
them--a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make
them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury if, in their
understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support,
forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in the federal territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions
under such responsibility speak still louder. . . .
The
remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left
no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of
slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much reason to believe that
their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from
that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.
For the
purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished,
other than the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution; and,
for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been
manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even on any other phase of the general
question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those
other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery
generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control
of slavery in Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would
probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times,--as Dr. Franklin,
Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris,--while there was not one now known to
have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum
of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original
Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole--certainly understood
that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal
Territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such,
unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original
Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better
than we."...
It is
surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine" framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the
amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly
called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so
assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life,
declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government
control as to slavery in the Federal Terrorities. I go a step further. I defy
any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the
beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning
of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in the
Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only "our fathers
who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living
men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they
shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and
here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we
are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to
discard all the lights of current experience, to reject all progress, all
improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy
of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and
argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and
weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves
declare they understood the question better than we. . . .
And now,
if they would listen,--as I suppose they will not,--I would address a few words
to the Southern people.
I would
say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I
consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not
inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so
only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws ....
You say
we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is
upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no
existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. The fact is
substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we
should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we
should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and
yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find
that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this
very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your
proof does not touch the issue. . . .
Some of
you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given
by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington
gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and
signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the
Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon
that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one
year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a
wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should some
time have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing
this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same
subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands
against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that
sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? . .
.
And how
much would it avail you, if you could. . . break up the Republican organization?
Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be
changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which
cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment
and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which
rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been
formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much
would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful
channel of the ballot box into some other channel? What would that other channel
probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the
operation?
But you
will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional
rights. That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you
of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no
such thing.
When you
make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an
assumed Constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal
Territories and hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically
written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such
right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the
Constitution, even by implication.
Your
purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless
you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all
points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
This,
plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court
has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so.
But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court has
decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court has substantially said,
it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and
to hold them there as property.
When I
say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided
Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one
another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed
supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly
based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in the opinion that “the
right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution.”
An
inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave
is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it’.
If they
had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the
instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the
word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word
“property” even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave,
or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slaveis alluded to, he is
called a “person”; and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is
alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due, “as a “debt”
payable in service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous
history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking
of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that
there could be property in man’.
Under all
these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this
Government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted
to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide
the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you
will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed
it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and
mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you
will be a murderer!”’.
A few
words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this
great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us
Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though the southern people will not
so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them
if in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say
and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they
be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know
they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are
scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it
satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and
insurrections? We know we never had anything to do with invasions and
insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge
and the denunciation.
The
question recurs, what will satisfy them? ’This, and this only; Cease to call
slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done
thoroughly--done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we
must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must
be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong,
whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest
and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our
Free-State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all
taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their
troubles proceed from us’
Holding,
as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot
cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social
blessing.
Nor can
we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is
wrong> If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it
are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we
cannot justly object to its nationality--its universality; if it is wrong, they
cannot justly insist upon its extension--its enlargement. All they ask we could
readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily
grant if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it
wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it
right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as
being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast
our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social,
and political responsibilities, can we do this?
Wrong as
we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that
much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but
can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National
Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States?
If our
sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and
effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances
wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored--contrivances such as
groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong; vain as the
search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a
policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care; such as
Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the
Divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such
as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and
undo what Washington did.
Neither
let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor
frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons
to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us
to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.
’ |