|
亚伯拉罕ˇ林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
“分裂之家”演说词
The House Divided Speech
(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)
我认爲这个政府不能在半奴隶制半自由的状态下长存。
亚伯拉罕ˇ林肯(1809ˇ1865)出生于肯塔基州霍金维尔附近。他自学成才ˇ干过多种职业ˇˇ水手、店主、邮政站长、土地测量员和铁匠ˇ后来学习法律ˇ成爲伊利诺伊州一名最成功的律师ˇ以聪明睿智、通情达理和坦诚正直而著称。他在州立法机关和州议会干过一些时候ˇ于1858年与斯蒂芬ˇAˇ道格拉斯竞选参议员。1858年6月l 6日。在伊利诺伊州的斯普林菲尔德ˇ林肯接受了共和党的提名ˇ他发表了一篇旨在分析国家面临重大问题的演说。林肯引用《新约》ˇ说道ˇ“分裂之家无可持存。”
林肯运用这篇演说指责民主党态意扩大奴隶制的范围ˇ并分析了近期发生的三大事件。第一件事是1854年国会通过了《堪萨斯ˇ内伯拉斯加法案》ˇ允许西部新开发的
准州的选民们自行决定是否实行奴隶制。这ˇ法案撤ˇ了禁止在这些准州内实行奴隶制的《密苏里妥协案》。林肯提醒他的听衆说ˇ参议员斯蒂芬ˇ道格拉斯提出了《内伯拉斯加法案》ˇ林肯还多次提及道格拉斯的话ˇ他“不在乎奴隶制被通过还是被否决”。第二件事是最高法院1857年的德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决ˇ判定黑人不是(也不能是)美国公民ˇ而国会也无权在自由州或
准州禁止奴隶制ˇ因爲这意味着剥夺奴隶主的财産。第三件事是在堪萨斯发生的就《莱康普顿ˇ法》的合法性问题引起的激烈争论。这是一部由亲奴隶制的居民炮制的州ˇ法ˇ他们企图避开公民投票ˇ而最终公民投票以压倒多数否决了这一ˇ法。
林肯将这三起事件称爲“一部机器”ˇ由“斯蒂芬、弗兰克林、罗杰和詹姆斯”营造而成ˇˇ即参议员道格拉斯、前总统弗兰克林ˇ皮尔斯、首席大法官罗杰ˇBˇ泰尼和詹姆斯ˇ布坎南总统ˇˇ皆爲民主党人。
如果我们首先知道我们的位置所在ˇ也清楚我们的迈步所趋ˇ就能更好地判断该做什麽以及如何去做。自从制定了方针ˇ目标明确、信誓旦旦地决心结束对奴隶制的鼓吹ˇ五个年头早已过去。这条方针不但没有结束对奴隶制的鼓吹ˇ而且还使它不断地得以扩大。照我看来ˇ对奴隶制的鼓吹直到一场危机的降临和蔓延ˇ才会了结。“分裂之家无可持存。”我认爲这个政府不能在半奴隶制半自由的状态下长存。我不希望这个国家分崩离析ˇˇ我不希望这个家庭灭顶倾覆ˇ但我确实希望它结束分裂的状态。它将朝两
条回迥然ˇ异的方ˇ发展ˇ要不就是奴隶制的反对者遏止其进一步的蔓延ˇ让公衆之心得以平静ˇˇ信奴隶制将最终走ˇ灭绝ˇ要不就是奴隶制的鼓吹者将其传播四方ˇ直至奴隶制从北到南ˇ在新旧各州都获得合法地位。
难道我们没有朝后一条路发展的迹ˇ吗?谁要是怀疑ˇ就ˇˇ看那个ˇ在几乎是完整无缺的法律结合体吧ˇˇ权且称它爲一部机器ˇ它由内伯拉斯加主义和德莱德ˇ斯科
特裁决组合而成。不仅要考虑一下这部机器是用来干什麽的和干得怎麽样ˇ还要研究一下它的组造历史ˇ并且ˇˇ不管有无可能ˇˇ如果可能的话ˇ从头寻究一下它的主机部件是如何设计和协调运行起来的。
到1854年新年爲止ˇ一半以上的州通过了州ˇ法禁止奴隶制ˇ而国会也在大多数准州禁止奴隶制。四天以后ˇ人们开始竭尽努力ˇ结果是取ˇ了国会的禁令ˇ由此就在所有
准州对奴隶制予以放行。这样ˇ他们得了第一分。
但在当时ˇ仅是国会采取了行动ˇ而人民的支持ˇ不论是实在的还是表面上的ˇ却对保住取得的第一分并伺机进一步得分不可或缺。这种必要性并没有被忽略ˇ它或多或少地在著名的“人民主权论”的论点ˇˇ也称爲“自治的神圣权利”ˇˇ中得以反映。“自治的神圣权利”的论点ˇ虽然表明了任何政府的唯一合法基础ˇ但却被曲解到如此地步而仅用来证明如果有人ˇ奴役他人ˇ不容许第三者站出来反对。这个论点被《内伯拉斯加法案》本身所采用。法案这样写道ˇ“本法案真实目的和含义爲ˇ在任一准州或任一州ˇ既不立法推行也不禁止奴隶制的实行ˇ而应让那里的人民在不违反《美国ˇ法》的前提下以自己的方式完全自由地形成和调整他们当地的组织机构和制度。”
接ˇ而来的是一片赞同“人民主权论”和“自治的神圣权利”喧闹的附和声。
“但是ˇ”反对派们说ˇ“让我们修正这ˇ法案以明确表明准州的人民可以禁止实行奴隶制吧!”
“咱们不干。”法案的拥护者们说道ˇ于是否决了修正案。当国会正着手讨论《内伯拉斯加法案》时ˇ美国密苏里地区巡回法庭正在审理一桩牵涉一个黑人的自由的案子。他的主人自愿地首先把他带入一个自由州ˇ尔后又带入一个实行国会禁奴方针的
准州ˇ在两个地方都呆了许久ˇ主人都将他以奴隶对待。与此同时ˇ即1854年5月ˇ《内伯拉斯加法案》和这桩案子都面临裁决。那位黑人名叫“德莱德ˇ斯科特”ˇ法庭对此案的最后裁决就以此命名。
在当时的总统换届大选前ˇ此桩案子被提交美国最高法院审理ˇ但拖到大选后才作出裁决。然而ˇ在大选前ˇ特朗布尔参议员在参议院起身发言ˇ要求《内伯拉斯加法案》的主要发起者阐明他的观点ˇ
准州的人民是否能不违ˇ地在其地区内禁行奴隶制?后者答道ˇ“这个问题应由最高法院回答。”
大选来临ˇ布坎南先生当选ˇ似乎得到了人民的支持。这样就赢得了第二分。然而ˇ这种支持是在少赢得了近四十万张选票而形成不了压倒多数的情况下获得的ˇ因此ˇ也许算不上是绝对可靠和令人满意的。卸任总统在他的最后一次年度演说中ˇ尽其可能印ˇ深刻地对大衆提到这种支援所蕴含的分量和权威性。
最高法院再次开庭ˇ没有宣布他们的裁决ˇ而是要求再一次辨论。总统就职仪式进行过了ˇ但法庭裁决迟迟未定。然而
新总统在就职演说中敦劝人民不论裁决怎样都予以支持。随后几天内作出了裁决。
这是赢得的第三分。
《内伯拉加法案》声名昭著的作者早些时候曾在国会大厦发表演说支持德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决ˇ并强烈谴责对它所有的异议。同样ˇ新总统也曾在早些时候支持并阐述过此ˇ裁决ˇ还表示说竟有人对此有不同的观点ˇ令他大爲吃惊ˇ最后ˇ新总统和《内伯拉斯加法案》的作者之间挑起了一场争斗ˇ仅仅旨在弄清《莱康普顿ˇ法》在任何正当的意义上是否由堪萨斯人民所制定的。争吵中ˇ后者声明他所要求的不过是人民公平的投票ˇ说他并不在乎奴隶制被通过还是被否决。我不认爲他所声明的不在乎奴隶制被通过还是被否决是他本人的意ˇˇ这其实是他ˇ施加于公衆之心的这种方针的恰切阐释而已ˇˇ他声明爲此如此原则他已吃了许多苦头ˇ并准备吃苦到底。
他不妨坚持他的原则吧。如果他对此原则尚存父爱之心ˇ那麽还是好好坚持吧。这ˇ原则是他的内伯拉斯加主义仅存的残简片段。在德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决中ˇ”人民主权”土崩瓦解ˇˇ临时搭起的脚手架一般散了身骨ˇˇˇ铸铁厂翻砂模具ˇ浇铸过一次后就复爲一盘散沙ˇˇ它在一次选举中起了点作用ˇ然后就弃爲废物ˇ随风而去了。他近来和共和党人协手合作反对《莱康普顿ˇ法》ˇ这和他原本的内伯拉斯加主义毫无ˇ干。那次斗争的要点是人民制定他们自己ˇ法的权利ˇ在这方面他与共和党人的观点毫无二致。
德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决的各个要点与道格拉斯参议员的“不在乎”方针ˇ构成了以ˇ状运行的这部机器。它的工作要点诸如下列ˇ
(1)所有从非洲进口的黑奴以及这些黑奴的后代都不能成爲《美国ˇ法》规定意义上的任何州的公民。
这点是用来尽其可能地剥夺黑人ˇ受《美国ˇ法》这ˇ条款规定的利益ˇ即“各州公民有权ˇ受各州公民的优惠待遇和豁免权”。
(2)“根据《美国ˇ法》”ˇ不论是国会还是准州立法机关都不能在美国的任何准州里禁止奴隶制。
这点是用来使人们可以在任何准州安置奴隶而无失去他们作爲财産的危ˇˇ以便奴隶制长存
于未来。
(3)在一个自由州使一个黑人实际上处于奴隶地位是否意味着他已脱离奴隶主而获自由ˇ这点美国法院将不作裁决ˇ而由主人能迫使这个黑人进入的任何一个蓄奴州的法庭来裁决。
这条要点并不求于立即实施ˇ而是在获得一段时期的默认并在一次选举中获得民衆表面支持后ˇ确认其符合逻辑的结论ˇ德莱德ˇ斯科
特的主人在伊利诺伊自由州合法的所作所爲ˇ任何另一奴隶主都能在伊利诺伊或任一其它自由州对所有的奴隶都合法地这样做。
内伯拉斯加主义ˇ或者说它的残余ˇ是附属于这一切的ˇ与其共同发生效用。它被用来影ˇ和建立舆论ˇˇ至少是北方的舆论ˇ使民衆对奴隶存在与否的投票结果漠不关心。这恰恰标志着我们ˇ在的处境ˇ也部分标志着我们正朝
那条路上往前走。
回顾以往ˇ在心头ˇˇ我已敍述过的历史事实ˇ对了解我们的迈进所趋是有进一步的啓发的。有些事情与它们刚刚发生时ˇ比ˇ在看来已不ˇ得那麽模糊不清和神秘莫测了。人民的选择应该“完全自由”ˇ“仅仅受ˇ法的约束”。而当时不知情的人是看不出ˇ法与其有什麽ˇ干的。ˇ在很清楚了ˇ它爲随后而至的德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决提供了一个大小正合适的容身壁龛ˇ并且声明人民完全的自由意味着根本的不自由。爲什麽那条明确表示人民有废除奴隶制的权利的修正案遭到了否决?ˇ在清楚了ˇ如果通过了它ˇ爲德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决准备的壁龛就垮台了。爲什麽法庭拖延判决?爲什麽一个参议员的个人观点被搁置不顾直至总统选举之后?ˇ在清楚了ˇ如果当时就回答就会损害选举赖以依据的“完全自由”的论点。爲什麽卸任总统要对人民的支持巧言美语?爲什麽延迟法庭的再度辩论?爲什麽当选总统要提前对服从裁决提出劝告?这些事情看上去就ˇ骑上一匹烈马前小心翼翼地拍弄抚摸它一样ˇ免得它将骑手摔个四脚朝天。爲什麽总统和其它人后来又急不可耐地对裁决表示支持呢?
我们无法绝对确认所有这些机巧天衣无缝的配合是预谋的结果。然而ˇ当我们看到这许多木料组成的构架ˇ它们不同的部件在不同的时间和地点由不同的工匠所造出ˇˇ斯蒂芬、弗兰克林、罗杰和詹姆斯等等ˇˇ当我们看到这些木料拼在一起ˇ看到它们天衣无缝地组成了一座房子或一间
工作坊的构架ˇ所有的掉头和榫眼密切结合ˇ一切构件的长度和大小都使其精确地各归其位ˇ一块也不多ˇ一块也不少ˇ甚至也没忘了搭置脚手架ˇˇ或者说如果构件少了一块的话ˇ构架上也留下了一处空位来补其所缺ˇˇ在这种情况下ˇ我们觉得不可能不ˇ信斯蒂芬、弗兰克林、罗杰和詹姆斯从一开头就心照不宣ˇ共同制定出一个计划或方案ˇ然后打出第一拳……
在德莱德ˇ斯科特案件中ˇ首席大法官和所有其它看法一致的法官们都发表意见ˇ明确宣布《美国ˇ法》既不容许国会也不容许
准州立法机关在任何美国准州里禁止奴隶制ˇ但他们都忘记宣布同一部ˇ法是否容许一个州或一个州的人民禁行奴隶制。这仅仅是一个疏忽而已ˇ但谁能肯定呢?……将这些拼合在一起ˇ于是又形成一个小巧的壁龛ˇ我们也许不久就会看到另一个最高法院的裁决ˇ置其中ˇ宣布《美国ˇ法》不容许一个州在其范围内禁行奴隶制。这种情况尤爲可能发生ˇ如果“不在乎奴隶制被通过或被否决”的信条取取得了民心而使他们答应当作出这样的裁决时可以让它保持下去。
奴隶制ˇ在正缺乏这样一个裁决而不能在各州都有合法地位。无论我们欢迎与否ˇ这个裁决可能正处酝酿ˇ不久就会强加于我们ˇ除非我们面对并推翻当前这个政治王朝的势力。我们可以舒心地躺下梦见密苏里州的人民即将使本地变爲自由州了ˇ但我们更应对ˇ实保持清醒ˇ因爲最高法院已将伊利诺伊变爲蓄奴州了。所有欲将阻止事态极端恶化的人们ˇ在要做的就是推翻这个王朝的势力。这是我们必须做的。我们要怎样尽力做好它呢?
有些人对他们自己的朋友公开地指责我们ˇ可是却悄悄对我们说我们要达到目标就应利用道格拉斯参议员这个最顺手的工具。他们没有告诉我们ˇ道格拉斯参议员也没有告诉过我们ˇ说他希望达到这种目标。他们希望我们全然以这样的密实作出推断ˇ即他ˇ在正与当今王朝的头目闹小摩擦ˇ而他对某个问题和我们的观点从未ˇ左ˇ常是站在我们这边表决的。他们提醒我们说他是一个非常伟大的人物ˇ而我们之中的大多数则微不足道。就算是这样吧。然而ˇ“一条活着的狗胜过一头死去的雄狮”。对于这ˇ工作来说ˇ道格拉斯法官即使不是一头死狮ˇ至少也是一头身处樊笼、牙根脱落的狮子。他怎麽会反对奴隶制的发展呢?他根本就无所谓。他所信守的使命就是影ˇ“民心”使其对此漠不关心。
因此ˇ我们的事业必须托付于自己的肝胆朋友ˇ由自己的肝胆朋友来完成。他们轻装上阵ˇ一心工作ˇ他们确实关心事情的结果。两年前ˇ这个国家的共和党人已壮大至一百三十多万人之强大阵容。我们这样做ˇ怀着一股抵制共同的危ˇ的蓬勃朝气ˇ面ˇ周围所有的敌对势力。在陌生、嘈杂甚至敌意的环境中ˇ我们召集
于四面八方ˇ联合起来ˇ在组织有序、飞扬拔扈、养尊处优的敌人燃起的不灭的烈焰中ˇ战斗到底。当时我们英勇奋斗ˇ今天却要畏缩不前吗ˇˇˇ今天?畏缩于正在动摇、分裂而好战的从前的敌人面前吗?结局是无可怀疑的ˇ我们不会失败ˇˇ只要我们立场坚定ˇ我们就不会失败。明智的思ˇ会加速胜利而过失会延迟胜利ˇ但是ˇ或迟或早ˇ胜利终将来临。
The House Divided Speech
If we could
first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what
to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was
initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to
slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has
not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided
against itself can not stand." I believe this Government can not endure
permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be
dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to
be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents
of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or
its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the
States, old as well as new, North as well as South.
Have we
no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts carefully
contemplate that now almost complete legal combination--piece of machinery, so
to speak--compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let
him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well
adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if
he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert
of action among its chief master-workers from the beginning.
The new
year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by
State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional
prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing
that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to
slavery, and was the first point gained.
But, so
far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or
apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for
more. This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well
as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called
"sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the
only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of
it as to amount to just this: that if any one man choose to enslave another, no
third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the
Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent
and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State,
nor to exclude it there from; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States."
Then
opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and
"sacred right of self-government."
"But,"
said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare
that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the
friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.
While the
Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of
a Negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first
into a free State and then a territory covered by the Congressional prohibition,
and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S.
Circuit Court for the District of Missouri and both the Nebraska Bill and law
suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The Negro's name
was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the
case.
Before
the then next Presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the
Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until
after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor
of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state his
opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery
from their limits; and the latter answered, "That is a question for the Supreme
Court."
The
election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was,
secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short
of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so,
perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing
President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back
upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.
The
Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a
re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the
court; but the incoming President in his Inaugural Address fervently exhorted
the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in
a few days came the decision.
This was
the third point gained.
The
reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at
this capitol indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all
opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes an early occasion to indorse
and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any
different view had ever been entertained!
At length
a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska
Bill. on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or
was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel
the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he
cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his
declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be
intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress
upon the public mind--the principle for which he declares he has suffered much,
and is ready to suffer to the end.
And well
may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he
cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska
doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of
existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding,--like the mould at the
foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand,--helped to
carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle
with the Republicans against the Lecompton Constitution involves nothing of the
original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point--the right of a
people to make their own Constitution--upon which he and the Republicans have
never differed.
The
several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas's
"care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of
advancement. The working points of that machinery are:
(1) That
no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such
slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in
the Constitution of the United States.
This point
is made in order to deprive the Negro in every possible event of the benefit of
this provision of the United States Constitution which declares that, "The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States."
(2) That,
"subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a
Territorial Legislature can' exclude slavery from any United States Territory.
This
point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with
slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances
of permanency to the institution through all the future.
(3) That
whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a
free State
makes him free as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide,
but will leave it to be decided by the courts of any slave State the Negro may
be forced into by the master.
This
point is made not to be pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a while,
and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the
logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred
Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any
other one or one thousand slaves in Illinois or in any other free State.
Auxiliary
to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what
is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public
opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows
exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending.
It will
throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the
string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less
dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to
be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the
Constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now,
it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision afterward to come
in, and declare that perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.
Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude
slavery voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled
the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why
even a Senator's individual opinion withheld till after the Presidential
election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the
"perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the
outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of
a re-argument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the
decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited
horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider
a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision, by the President
and others?
We cannot
absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of
pre-concert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of
which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and
by different workmen,--Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance,--and
when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame
of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the
lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their
respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even
scaffolding--or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame
exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in--in such a case we find
it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all
understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or
draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. . . .
While the
opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the
separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the
Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial
Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit
to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people
of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this was a mere omission; but who can be
quite sure . . . Put this and that together, and we have another nice little
niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision,
declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to
exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the
doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon
the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can
be maintained when made.
Such a
decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.
Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon
us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met
and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of
Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the
reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet
and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who
would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do
it?
There are
those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly
that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that
object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object
to be effected. They wish us to infer all from the facts that he now has a
little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly
voted with us on a single point upon which he and we have never differed. They
remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small
ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge
Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless
one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it.
His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. .
. .
Our
cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted
friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care
for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered
over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of
resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of
strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four
winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of
a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter
now?--now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The
result is not doubtful. We shall not fail--if we stand firm, we shall not fail.
Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the
victory is sure to come.
|