林肯 ˇ 道格拉斯辩论
The LincolnˇDouglas Debates

1860 选举卡通ˇ示林肯与道格拉斯的比赛

斯蒂芬ˇAˇ道格拉斯ˇ这个国家是建立在这样的基础上的ˇ即每个州都有权根据自己的意愿决定奴隶制的存亡。

亚伯拉罕ˇ林肯ˇ这场争论的真正问题在于……一派的观点将奴隶制度视爲邪恶ˇ而另一派的观点不把它视爲邪恶。

1858年ˇ林肯从伊利诺伊州和斯蒂芬ˇ道格拉斯参议员竞选美国参议院席位。他ˇ道格拉斯挑战ˇ在整个州的范围内展开了一系列的辩论。道格拉斯是民主党全国性的风云人物ˇ而林肯出了本州岛则默默无闻。成千上万人ˇˇ农民、工人、职员等等ˇˇ前来观战、提问、ˇ自己的一方喝彩。辩论仅集中于一个问题ˇ奴隶制。

道格拉斯(1813ˇ1861)生于佛蒙特州ˇ二十岁时迁居伊利诺伊州。三十岁时入选衆议院。道格拉斯是一名天才演说家ˇ虽然身材矮小ˇ却以“矮小的巨人”而闻名。1846年ˇ道格拉斯入选参议院。他狂热鼓吹领土扩张。由于西部领土扩张引起了在新的 准州里是否允许实行奴隶制的激烈争论ˇ道格拉斯于l 854年领头制定了《堪萨斯一内伯拉斯加法案》ˇ此法案取ˇ了《密苏里妥协案》ˇ允许当地居民自行选择。

道格拉斯认爲各州或准州的人民应自行投票决定是否实行奴隶制ˇ林肯则争辩说奴隶制不该扩展到ˇ存的奴隶州以外的地方去了。林肯坚持认爲奴隶制是邪恶的ˇ而道格拉斯也同样坚决地坚持说国家的生存要求尊重民衆的主权ˇ即便这会使奴隶制扩展也无妨。

林肯最终赢得了公衆投票ˇ但竞选却失败了(当时参议员由立法机关选举産生而不由公衆投票産生)。这次辩论使他成爲共和党全国领袖人物ˇ以及1860年总统大选的竞争者。

以下的交锋于1858年10月15日在伊利诺伊州的阿尔顿展开。

道格拉斯的开场白

自从林肯先生和我开始竞选ˇ近四个月时间已经过去。6月16日ˇ共和党代表大会在斯普林菲尔德召开ˇ提名林肯先生作爲他们的候选人竞选美国参议员。当时他发表了一篇演说ˇ提出了他所理解的共和党的信条ˇ以及在这场竞争中他要采取的立场。

林肯先生发言的要点是这样的ˇ首先ˇ这个政府不能在有的州实行奴隶制有的州自由的分裂状态下长存下去ˇ尽管我们的祖先本来就是这样安排的ˇ它们要不都变爲自由州ˇ要不都变爲奴隶州ˇ要不全是这样ˇ要不全是那样ˇˇ不然这个国家就不能继续生存。这里我几乎是原字原句ˇ你们转述他的观点的。他提出的第二点是ˇ美国最高法院的征战ˇ因爲法院作出了德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决。他特别提出了他反对那ˇ裁决的理由ˇ即它剥夺了《美国ˇ法》规定的黑人的权利和利益ˇ因爲ˇ法条款规定必须保证每一个州的公民ˇ有各州公民应有的权利、优惠待遇和豁免权。

7月10日我回到了家ˇˇ对芝加哥的人民发表了演讲。发言中我表明我的目的是呼吁伊利诺伊州的人民继续进行我在国会一直从事的事业。在那次演说中ˇ我就林肯先生提出的论点与他进行了争论。这样ˇ我们之间的论题就非常清晰明确了。针对林肯先生在斯普林菲尔德提出的两个主张ˇ我在芝加哥的发言反驳了他。第二天ˇ7月11日ˇ林肯先生在芝加哥回答了我ˇ作了一定程度的解释。并再次重申他在斯普林菲尔德演说中的立场。在芝加哥的演说中ˇ他甚至比过去更进了一步ˇ发表了关于黑人与白人平等的观点。爲了左证他的立场ˇ他采用了洛夫乔伊、科丁和其它一些废奴主义演说家提出的、在本州岛北部和中部衆所熟知的论点ˇ这就是ˇ既然《独立宣言》宣称人人天赋自由和平等ˇ那麽黑人的平等也是不可剥夺的权利ˇ因此他们应该ˇ有这种权利。他在发言中坚持说《独立宣言》在肯定人人生来平等的条款中包括了黑人ˇ并且居然还说ˇ要是允许一个人认爲本条款不包括黑人ˇ那麽别人也就可以认爲它不包括其它人。他说应该 摒弃所有这些人与人的区分、种族与种族的区分ˇ我们应该采取《独立宣言》的立场ˇ宣告人人生来平等。

这样ˇ林肯先生和我本人之间就针对三个问题展开了争论ˇ本州岛人民对我们衆目以观之。在接下来的七个星期里ˇ在芝加哥演说和我们第一次在奥塔华市ˇ遇这段时间ˇ他和我在许多中部的ˇ区里都对大批的听衆作了发言。在我的演说中ˇ我将论题紧扣他采取的三个立场ˇ反驳他关于这个国家不能照我们祖先原来的安排分爲一半自由州一半蓄奴州的方式存在下去的观点ˇ反驳他由于德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决而对最高法院的讨伐ˇ反驳他所说的《独立宣言》关于人人生来平等的提法包括并也适用 于黑人而不单单是白人的观点。在我的每一场演说中ˇ我分析林肯先生的三个主张ˇ并指出我认爲这些主张中包含的根本错误。第一ˇ针对他的关于这个政府违反了上帝之规即分裂之家无可持存这种信条ˇ我反驳道这是给我们ˇ法的不朽缔造者脸上抹黑。我随后说道ˇ我经常重申、ˇ在再次强调ˇ照我看来我们的政府能够按照我们祖先将国家分爲部分自由州部分蓄奴州的方式永世长存ˇˇ每一个州都有权根据自己的意愿决定是禁止、废除还是保存奴隶制。这个政府是建立在各州主权的坚实基础上的ˇ各州有权调整自己的地方体制以适应其具体情况。这ˇ权利根据于这样的理解和希望ˇ即各地有其各自的利益ˇ所以各地就必须有其不同和特殊的地方及当地的体制与它的需要和利益ˇ一致。我们祖先创建这个政府时就知道ˇ适合佛蒙特州格林山的法律制度并不适用于南卡罗来纳州富饶的农场ˇ他们当时就知道ˇ正如我们ˇ在很清楚一样ˇ适合伊利诺伊州美丽的草原的法律制度并不适用于加利福尼亚州的矿区。他们知道ˇ在幅员如此辽阔的国家里ˇ由于土壤、气候和利益如此多种多样ˇ就必须有ˇ应多样的地方法律、政策和制度使各州适应于自己的情况和需要。由于这个缘故ˇ这个国家建立的基础就是ˇ每一个州都有权根据自己的意愿对奴隶制及任何其它问题做出决定ˇ而各州不应指责兄弟州的政策ˇ更不应对此横加干涉。

林肯的回答

道格拉斯法官设ˇ我们的祖先要使我们政府处于半奴隶制半自由的状态ˇ这不是事实。应该弄清他所说的含义。他设ˇ奴隶制本身是正义的ˇˇ是由ˇ法的缔造者所确立的。而事实的真ˇ是ˇ他们发ˇ奴隶制存在于我们之中ˇ却对此ˇ实无可奈何。在创建政府的过程中ˇ他们留下了这个制度和许多其它不尽如人意之处。他们发ˇ了奴隶制的存在而又留下了它ˇ是因爲立即取ˇ它很困难ˇˇ这其实是绝无可能的。当道格拉斯法官问我爲什麽我们不能按祖先安排的那样使政府保持半奴隶制半自由的状态时ˇ他的问题是建立在一个本身就是错误的设ˇ上的。ˇ在我对他提一个问题ˇ我们政府的祖先采取的与存在于我们中的这个因素有关的政策是世界上最好的政策、唯一明智的政策、唯一可由我们安全地继承实施的政策、永远给与我们和平的政策ˇˇ除非我们让这个危ˇ的因素统治我们所有人并成爲全国性的制度ˇˇˇ那麽我要问他爲什麽他不愿这个政策原样保持?我要问他爲什麽急于提出与它有关的一个新政策?他自己说过他提出了一个新政策好吧ˇ先不论奴役黑人在道德上是公正还是邪恶的。我还是希望我们新的 准州处于这样的情况ˇ白人能找到他们的家园ˇ能找到一块他们能改善处境的地方ˇ在那里他们能置身于一片新的土地上得以提高生活条件。我希望如此ˇ并非仅仅是(正如我在其它地方说过的那样ˇ在这里我还要说)对于生长于我们之间的自己的人民而言ˇ同时也是对于不论身处何地的自由的白人而言ˇˇ全世界的白人ˇˇ在那里不论是汉斯、贝普提斯特、帕特里克还是世界上任何其它人都能找到新家园并过上更好的生活。

在过去的场合我曾提到过、而我不妨再提一下我所认爲的道格拉斯法官和我之间的论题之究竟所在。说我要在自由州和蓄奴州之间挑起战火ˇ这一点我们之间没什麽可争的。他设ˇ我要在白色种族和黑色种族之间建立一种完善的社会和政治平等ˇ这也没有什麽可争的。这些都不是真正的论题ˇ而道格拉斯法官却企图就它们挑起争论。指责我持有这些主张是毫无事实根据的。这场争论的真正问题在于ˇˇ使人人心头感到压力的问题ˇˇ一派的观点将奴隶制度视爲邪恶ˇ而另一派的观点不把它视爲邪恶。视这个国家的奴隶制度爲邪恶的观点是共和党的观点。他们的一切行动、一切论点都围绕这个观点而展开ˇ他们所有的主张都由这个观点而延伸。他们将奴隶制度视爲道义、社会和政治上的邪恶ˇˇ但在持这种看法的同时ˇ他们对这个制度在我们中的既成事实也有着正确的认识ˇ知道以恰当的方式摆脱它有许多难处ˇ还注意到这个问题牵涉的所有ˇ法上的责任。然而ˇ由于对这些问题有正确的认识ˇ他们渴望就此制定一条方针以确保奴隶制不会産生更大的危ˇ。他们坚持认爲ˇ奴隶制应在尽可能的程度上作爲邪恶来处理ˇ而将它作爲邪恶来处理的一个方法是应规定它不能扩大了。他们还渴望制定一条方针确保邪恶的奴隶制将于某时用和平的方式予以终结。这些就是我所理解的他们关于这个问题的看法ˇ他们所有的观点、他们所有的论点和主张都不出这个范围。我曾经说过、这里还要重申的是ˇ如果我们其中有谁不认爲奴隶制度在我提及的任何方面是邪恶的ˇ他就站错了位置而不应属于我们这边。如果我们其中有谁对奴隶制如此耐不住性子而无视它在我们中的既成事实ˇ无视立即以恰当的方式摆脱它的困难ˇ无视它所牵涉的ˇ法上的责任ˇ他在我们的阵地上就站错了位置。我们在实际行动中不予他以同情ˇ他在我们之中是位置不当的。

关于将奴隶制作爲邪恶处理并遏制其蔓延这个问题我还有话要说。除开这个奴隶制度以外ˇ还有什麽其它东西威胁过这个国家的生存吗?在我们中间ˇ什麽东西是视爲最可珍贵的呢?是我们自己的自由和繁荣。除开这个奴隶制度以外ˇ还有什麽东西威胁过我们的自由和繁荣呢?如果这是事实的话ˇ那你又怎能通过扩展奴隶制ˇˇ使之蔓延ˇ将其壮大ˇˇ来改善事物的ˇ状呢?你身上长着一个囊肿毒瘤ˇ但无法将它割除ˇ因爲这样做会使你流血致死ˇ然而ˇ治疗的方法却肯定不是将毒瘤繁延、使其扩散于你的全身。这不是处理被你视爲邪恶的东西的恰当方式。你再看看这种处理它的邪恶的和平的方式ˇˇ抑制它的扩散ˇ不让它蔓延至原先它所不存在的新的 准土里去。这是一种和平的方式、传统的方式。我们的先辈爲这种方式的运用给我们树立了典范。

在另一方面ˇ我已说过有种观点认爲奴隶制度不是邪恶的ˇ这是今天民主党的观点。我并不是ˇ说凡持有这种观点的人都明确主张奴隶制是正义的ˇ这一派包括所有那些明确主张它是正义的人ˇ以及所有ˇ道格拉斯法官那样将其视爲无关紧要而不表示它是正义还是邪恶的人。这两种人汇总成一派ˇ不把奴隶制度视爲邪恶。

对于这种制度ˇ民主党的方针不能容忍人们对其邪恶的一丁半点发表只言词组或作出最微小的暗示。就拿道格拉斯法官的论点爲例吧。他说他“不在乎奴隶制”在 准州里“被通过还是被否决”。对他的这种说法ˇ我本人并不在乎这是用来表示他个人对这个问题的看法ˇ还是仅用来表示他所希望建立的全国性的方针ˇˇ这对解释我的观点同样有价值。任何一个人都可以ˇ他那样说ˇ只要这个人不认爲奴隶制有什麽邪恶就行。然而ˇ没人能符合逻辑地说出这番话ˇ如果他确实看到了奴隶制的邪恶ˇ因爲没人能符合逻辑地说他对一种邪恶是被通过还是被否决满不在乎。他可以说他不在乎一件无关紧要的事情被通过还是被否决ˇ但他必须符合逻辑地在一件正义的事物和一件邪恶的事物之间做出选择。道格拉斯法官争辩说ˇ只要一个地方需要奴隶ˇ他们就有权拥有奴隶。要是奴隶制不是邪恶的ˇ他们则可以拥有奴隶ˇ但如果奴隶制是邪恶的ˇ他就不能说人们有权作恶。他说ˇ根据对等的道理ˇ奴隶正ˇ其它财産一样允许进入一个新的 准州。要是奴隶和其它财産毫无区别的话ˇ这样说是严格地符合逻辑的ˇ要是它和其它财産是对等的话ˇ这个论点是完全符合逻辑的。但是如果你坚信一边是邪恶的而另一边是公正的ˇ那麽公正和邪恶之间就没有什麽可比性。你们可以从头到尾将民主党的方针细细地寻查一遍ˇ不论是体ˇ在其法令文书中ˇ体ˇ在德莱德ˇ斯科特裁决中ˇ体ˇ在交谈言论中ˇ还是体ˇ在其精悍的格言体的论点中ˇˇ奴隶制有什麽邪恶这样的观点都被小心谨慎地排除在外。

这就是论题的真正所在。这就是道格拉斯法官和我的舌战偃息旗鼓时将继续存留于这个国家的问题。它是两种原则ˇˇ正义和邪恶ˇˇ之间在世界范围内永不休止的争斗。这两种原则自太古以来就针锋ˇ对ˇ并将永远斗争下去。其中之一是人类共同的权利ˇ另一个则是神授的君王的权利。这后一种原则不论以何种面目发展都本性不移。它怀着一如既往的精神说道ˇ“你们工作吧、辛劳吧!你们挣回面包供我ˇ用吧ˇ”它不管以何种形式出ˇˇ不论是出自一个恣意践踏本国人民 于脚下的君王之口ˇ还是一个种族要奴役另一个种族的辩解ˇ都出于那个专横暴虐的原则……

The LincolnˇDouglas 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....