亚伯拉罕ˇ林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)

在库珀学会的演说
The Cooper Union Speech

我们要坚信正义即力量ˇ并且在这个信念指引下ˇ敢于照我们所理解的那样ˇ把我们的责任履行到底。

在1860年争夺共和党总统候选人的提名中ˇ林肯只是个不知名的竞争者。在伊利诺伊州之外ˇ几乎没人知道他这个人。他同道格拉斯的辩论引起人们对他的注意ˇ然后在1859年ˇ他在中西部几个州发表演说ˇ1860年2月27日在纽约市的库珀学会ˇ他对一大群听衆发表演说。这次演说使他打进了前纽约州长、共和党总统候选人提名的主要竞争者威廉ˇHˇ苏厄德家ˇ。紧接着在纽约的胜利之后ˇ林肯又去新英格兰演说ˇ这又使他引起美国东北部那些关键代表的注意。1860年5月在芝加哥举行的共和党全国代表大会上ˇ林肯在第三次投票中获得提名。

六十年后ˇHˇLˇ门肯还认爲那次在库珀学会的演说使林肯“得到了总统职位”。参议员斯蒂芬ˇAˇ道格拉斯(此人不久就成爲民主党提名的总统候选人ˇ在总统大选中是林肯的对手)曾断言创建这个国家的先辈们是故意要保留奴隶制的。林肯在库珀学会的演说中则对他这种说法表示怀疑。在这篇受到广泛注意的演说中就奴隶制这个问题ˇ林肯仔细分析了那些制定ˇ法的人的意图。其意义超过了对前人意图的研究ˇ一百多年后ˇ法律学者还继续辩论究意那些ˇ法制定者们是否ˇ结束奴隶制。

……据《纽约时报》报导ˇ去年秋天ˇ参议员道格拉斯先生在俄亥俄州哥伦布所作的一篇演讲中曾说ˇ

“当我们的先辈组建管辖我们的这个政府时ˇ他们跟我们一样理解这个问题ˇ甚至比我们ˇ在理解得更好。”

我完全赞同这种说法ˇ并以此作爲我这篇演讲的一个主题。我之所以这样做是因爲它爲共和党人和民主党中以参议员道格拉斯先生爲首的那一翼之间的讨论提供了一个准确一致的出发点……

谁是我们制定ˇ法的先辈们呢?我以爲在原始文件上签名的那“三十九”位可以明确地称爲我们组建了ˇ政府的那个部分的先辈……

根据引文说那些先辈们跟我们一样理解这个问题ˇ甚至比我们ˇ在理解得更好。那麽这个问题是什麽呢?

这个问题是这样的ˇ地方权威和联邦权威的适当分开或者ˇ法中有什麽条文是否能禁止联邦政府在联邦土地上控制奴隶制?

对于这个问题ˇ道格拉斯认爲答案是肯定的ˇ而共和党人认爲是否定的。这种肯定与否定的对立就构成一个问题ˇ这个问题正是那段引文所宣称的我们的先辈比我们更理解的问题。

ˇ在我们不妨问这样一个问题ˇ到底那“三十九”位或他们之中任何一位曾遵照这个问题行事ˇ如果他们真这麽做了ˇ那他们是怎麽做的ˇˇ他们是怎麽表达出那种更好的理解的。

在1874年ˇ即ˇ法産生前三年ˇ当时美国只占有西北地区的土地ˇ没有其它的领土ˇ那时美国十三州邦联议会就已经遇到了在那片土地上禁止奴隶制的问题ˇ后来参加制定ˇ法的那“三十九”位签名人中的四人就是那个议会的成员ˇ并参加了对禁奴问题的投票表决。这四个人中ˇ罗杰ˇ沙曼(Roger Sherman)、托马斯ˇ米夫林 (Thomas Mifflin)、休ˇ威廉森 (Hugh Williamson) 都投票赞成禁止奴隶制ˇ这就表明根据他们的理解ˇ地方权威和联邦权威的分离或任何别的什麽都没有理由禁止联邦政府在联邦领土内控制奴隶制。这四个人中的另一个人詹姆斯ˇ麦克亨利 (James McHenry) 投票反对禁止奴隶制ˇ这表明ˇ由于某种原因ˇ他认爲投票赞成禁止奴隶制是不适当的。

在1787年ˇ仍然是在ˇ法産生之前ˇ但这时制ˇ会议正在开会制定ˇ法ˇ而且这时西北地区的领土仍然是美国占有的唯一领土ˇ就在这个时候ˇ禁止奴隶制的问题又一次提到十三州邦联议会上ˇ后来在ˇ法上签名的那“三十九”人中又有两人参加了那次邦联议会ˇ而且参加了禁奴问题的投票表决。他们是威廉ˇ布朗特 (William Blount)和威廉ˇ菲尤 (William Few)ˇ两人都投票赞成禁止奴隶制……

在1789年ˇ根据ˇ法召开的第一次邦联议会通过一个法案实施1787年的法令ˇ其中包括在西北领土上禁止奴隶制ˇ这个法案的议案是由那“三十九”位签名人之一ˇ托马斯ˇ菲茨西蒙斯 (Thomas Fitzsimmons) ˇ议会报告的ˇ他当时是由宾夕法尼亚来的衆议院议员。议案通过各个阶段没有人说一句反对的话ˇ最后没有投赞成票和反对票就在两院通过ˇ这就等于是全体一致通过。在这次议会中ˇ制定原始ˇ法的“三十九”位先辈中有十六位参加。他们是ˇ约翰ˇ兰登 (John Langdon)ˇ尼古拉斯ˇ吉尔曼(Nicholas Gilman)ˇ威廉ˇSˇ约翰森 (Wm. S. Johnson)ˇ罗杰ˇ舍曼 (Roger Sherman)ˇ罗伯特ˇ莫里斯 (Robert Morris)ˇ托马斯ˇ菲茨西蒙斯 (Thos. Fitzsimmons)ˇ威廉ˇ菲尤 (William Few)ˇ亚伯拉罕ˇ鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)ˇ鲁弗斯ˇ金 (Rufus King)ˇ威廉ˇ帕滕森 (William Patterson)ˇ乔治ˇ克莱默 (George Clymer)ˇ理查德德ˇ巴西特 (Richard Bassett)ˇ乔治ˇ里德 (George Read)ˇ皮尔斯ˇ巴特勒 (Pierce Butler)ˇ丹厄尔ˇ卡罗尔 (Daniel Carrol)ˇ詹姆斯ˇ麦迪逊 (James Madison) ……

还有当时的美国总统乔治ˇ华盛顿也是那“三十九”位签名人之一ˇ他以总统的名义批准了提案并在上面签字ˇ这样就完成了使之作爲法律而生效的程序ˇ而且也表明ˇ根据华盛顿的理解ˇ联邦权威与地方权威的分离或者ˇ法中的任何规定都无法禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。

原来的ˇ法通过后不久ˇ北卡罗来纳州就把ˇ在是因纳西州的那块地方割给联邦政府ˇ几年后ˇ乔治亚州也把ˇ在是密西西比州和亚拉巴马州的那片土地割给联邦政府。在这两个割地契约上ˇ割地的州都规定了一个条件ˇ即联邦政府不能在被割的土地上禁止奴隶制。除此之外ˇ当时在被割的土地上实际已存在奴隶制。在这些情况下ˇ国会爲了管理这些地方ˇ并没在这些地方内绝对禁止奴隶制。但是国会实际上是干预了ˇˇ对奴隶制进行控制ˇˇ即使在那些地方ˇ也控制到一定程度。1798年ˇ国会组建密西西比 准州。在组织法案中ˇ国会通过罚款和释放带进的奴隶来禁止从美国以外的任何地方将奴隶带进这个准州。这个法案在两院得到一致通过。制定原来ˇ法的那“三十九”位签名人中有三人在那个议会里。他们是ˇ约翰ˇ兰登 (John Langdon)、乔治ˇ里德 (George Read) 和亚伯拉罕ˇ鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)……

在1803年ˇ联邦政府买下了路易斯安那那片土地。以前我们是从自己的某些州中获取土地的ˇ但这块路易斯安那是ˇ外国买来的。1804年ˇ国会将ˇ在是路易斯安那州的那部分地方进行领土组织。位于那块土地之中的新奥尔良是一个ˇ当大的旧城市ˇ还有其它ˇ当多的城镇与居住地ˇ在这些地方ˇ奴隶制已广泛彻底地与人民混合在一起。国会并没有在领土法案中禁止奴隶制ˇ但国会实际上是干预了ˇˇ控制了奴隶制ˇˇ而且比在密西西比做得更明ˇ、更广泛。针对奴隶问题所制定的条款是ˇ

(1)不能从外国进口奴隶到那地方。
(2)不能将1798年5月1日以来进口到美国的奴隶带进那个地方。
(3)除非奴隶主将奴隶带进来并供他自己作爲居留者使用ˇ任何奴隶都不准被带进来。所有违反法律的情况ˇ都将受到罚款处罚ˇ并将奴隶释放。

这个法案也得到一致通过ˇ在通过这个法案的那次议会里有两人在“三十九”位签名人之中。他们是ˇ亚伯拉罕ˇ鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)和乔纳森ˇ戴顿 (Jonathan Dayton)……

在18l9年至1820年之间提出了密苏里问题并得到通过。就这个总的问题的各个方面ˇ国会两院通过投赞成票和反对票进行了多次表决。“三十九”位签名人中有两人ˇˇ鲁弗斯ˇ金 (Rufus King) 和查尔斯ˇ平克尼 (Charles Pinckney) ˇˇ是那次议会的成员。金先生坚定地投票赞成废除奴隶制并反对任何妥协ˇ而平克尼先生则投票反对禁止奴隶制而且也反对任何妥协……

我所提到的这些情况仅仅是这“三十九”人或者他们中的任何一个人就这个直接的问题所采取的行动ˇ这就是我所能发ˇ的……

那麽ˇ在此ˇ我们那“三十九”位组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈之中有二十三位ˇ根据他们的公务职责和手按《圣经》所发的誓ˇ就那个问题采取了行动ˇ这个问题正是前面引文所肯定的“他们跟我们一样理解ˇ而且甚至比我们ˇ在理解得更好”的问题。他们当中的二十三人ˇˇ这ˇ然是“三十九”人中的多数ˇˇ对这个问题采取了这样的行动ˇ如果根据他们的理解ˇ地方权威与联邦权威的任何适当分离ˇ或者他们亲自制定并发誓支持的ˇ法中的任何规定ˇ会禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制ˇ那他们就犯有粗鄙的政治错误和故意伪证罪。因此这二十三人采取了行动ˇ行动胜于空谈ˇ而根据这种责任所采取的行动就更胜于空谈了……

那“三十九”位签名人中剩下的十六人ˇ就我所了解的ˇ没有留下任何记录表明他们对联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制这个直接问题的理解。但是有理由ˇ信ˇ如果他们的理解曾得到表明ˇ那麽他们对这个问题的理解也不会表ˇ出与他们那二十三个同伴有什麽不同。

爲了严格信守引文ˇ除了制定原来ˇ法的那“三十九”先辈之外ˇ我有意略去了任何其它人所表示的理解ˇ不管他们有多麽ˇ赫ˇ而且爲了同样理由ˇ我也略去了这“三十九”人中的任何一位就奴隶制这个总的问题的其它方面所表示的理解。如果我们真的审查一下他就诸如对外奴隶买卖。以及奴隶制的道德和政策等其它方面的问题所采取的行动和发表的声明ˇ那麽在我们看来ˇ就联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制这个直接问题ˇ如果那十六人曾经采取行动的话ˇ他们也许会和那二十三人采取同样的行动。在那十六人有几个人名列当时最著名的反奴隶制人士之中ˇˇˇ如富兰克林博士 (Dr. Franklin)、亚历山大ˇ汉米尔顿 (Alexander Hamilton) 和古维诺尔ˇ莫里斯 (Gouverneur Morris) ˇˇ据ˇ在所知其中没有一个人的态度是与此ˇ反的ˇ若有可能ˇ除非是南卡罗来纳的约翰ˇ拉特利奇 (John Rutledge)。

我们那“三十九”位制定了原来ˇ法的先辈中总共有二十三人ˇˇ这是明ˇ的多数ˇˇ肯定认爲联邦权威与地方权威的适当分离ˇ或ˇ法中的任何条款都不能禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制ˇ而所有其余的人也许是有同样的理解。毫无疑问这就是我们那些制定了原来ˇ法的先辈们的理解ˇ而且引文也肯定认爲他们对这个问题的理解“比我们更好”。

我们完全可以假定那“三十九”位制定了原来ˇ法的先辈再加上七十六位制定了修正案的议员ˇ加在一起ˇ肯定包括了那些可以被恰当地称爲“组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈”。基于这种假定ˇ我反对任何人表示他们其中任何一个人ˇ在他的一生中曾宣布根据他的理解ˇ联邦权威与地方权威的适当分离ˇ或者ˇ法中的任何条款ˇ可禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。我还要进一步反对任何人表示在整个世界任何一个活着的人曾在本世纪初之前(我几乎要说是在本世纪后半叶之前)曾宣布过ˇ根据他的理解ˇ地方权威与联邦权威的适当分离ˇ或者ˇ法中的任何条款会禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。对于那些宣称会禁止的人ˇ我不仅可以拿出“我们那些组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈们”ˇ而且在政府组建的那个世纪内所有其它活着的人也可拿出来与先辈们放在一起让他们去寻找ˇ他们将无法找出任何一个人同意他们看法的证据。

ˇ在ˇ在此ˇ我得略爲防备ˇ以免误解。我不是说我们一定要盲目照搬我们的先辈所做的任何事情ˇ这样做就要摒弃ˇ今经验中所有能帮助我们理解的事实ˇ排斥一切进步和提高。我所真正要说的是ˇ如果我们要在任何情况下取代我们先辈的意见和政策ˇ我们就应当依据确凿的证据、明确的论点ˇ使其权威在经过ˇ当的考虑和掂量之后还能站得住脚ˇ而且肯定不是我们自己宣布他们对这个问题的理解比我们更好ˇ……

ˇ在ˇ如果他们愿意听的话ˇˇ我ˇ他们是不愿意听的ˇˇ我ˇ对南方人说几句话。

我要对他们说ˇ你们认爲自己是通情达理和公正的人ˇ而我认爲在讲道理和公正这些普通品质上ˇ你们不比其它任何人差。可是ˇ当你们说起我们共和党人时ˇ你们只会骂我们卑鄙ˇ或者说最好也不比亡命之徒强……

你们说我们是地方主义的。我们否认。这就造成争执ˇ而你们有责任提出证据来。你们提出你们的证据ˇ那是什麽证据呢?喏ˇ我们党在你们的地区是不存在的ˇˇ在你们的地区得不到选票。这完全是事实ˇ但它能说明问题吗?如果能说明问题的话ˇ那麽ˇ假如我们不改变原则而开始在你们的地区获得选票ˇ我们就不再是地方主义了。这个结论你们不会看不到。可是ˇ你们愿意遵守这个结论吗?如果愿意ˇ也许你们很快就会发ˇ我们不再是地方主义的了ˇ因爲我们今年将在你们的地区获得选票。那时你们就会发ˇˇ事实明摆着ˇ你们的证据没有触及问题……

你们有些人喜欢当着我们的面卖弄华盛顿在他的告别演说中提出的对地方主义的警告。在华盛顿提出那个警告不到八年前ˇ他作爲合衆国总统ˇ曾经赞同并签署了一ˇ国会法案ˇ在西北 准州禁止奴隶制ˇ这ˇ法案体ˇ了直到他提出那个警告时和提出警告的那个时刻ˇ政府对这个问题的政策ˇ而在他提出警告大约一年之后ˇ他写信给拉斐叶特ˇ说他认爲在西北 准州禁止奴隶制是个明智的措施ˇ并且表示希望将来能由各自由州组成邦联。

记住这一点ˇ再来看一看自从那时以后在这同一问题上已经出ˇ的地方主义ˇ那麽ˇ华盛顿的警告到底是你们手里反对我们的武器呢ˇ还是我们手里反对你们的武器?要是华盛顿本人还能说话ˇ他究竟会指责我们这些支持他政策的人犯有地方主义呢ˇ还是指责你们这些反对他的政策的人犯有地方主义ˇ……

就算你们能够……破坏共和党的组织ˇ这对你们又有多大益处呢?人的行爲可以在某种程度上改变ˇ可是人的天性却是改变不了的。在这个国家有一种反对奴隶制的意见和感情ˇ至少可以投一百五十万张票。我们的政治组织就是靠这种意见和感情ˇˇ这种情感而聚集起来的ˇ你们即使把这个组织破坏掉ˇ也摧毁不了这种情感。一支在你们猛烈炮火下建立起来的纪律严明的军队ˇ你们是很难打垮的。但是ˇ即便你们能打垮它ˇ用武力使造就那支军队的情感越出投票ˇ的和平轨道而进入其它轨道ˇ这对你们又有什麽好处呢?那另一种轨道大概会是什麽呢?ˇ约翰ˇ布朗 (John Browns) 那样的人会因爲这个行动减少还是增加呢?

然而ˇ你们宁可使联邦分裂也不甘心让人剥夺ˇ法赋予你们的权利。

这听起来有点草率ˇ但是ˇ如果我们提议仅靠人数多的力量来剥夺ˇ法明文规定给你们的权利ˇ情况就会缓和ˇ即使这种做法不完全正当。但我们不会提出这种建议。

当你们作这些声明时ˇ你们明明是暗示ˇ法给你们权利把奴隶带进联邦各准州ˇ并把他们留在那里作爲你们的财産。可是ˇ法里并没有专门规定这种权利。在那个文件里ˇ根本没有提到这种权利。ˇ反地ˇ我们就不认爲ˇ法里规定了这样一种权利ˇ甚至连言外之意都没有。

那麽ˇ你们的目的ˇ说穿了就是要搞垮政府ˇ除非允许你们在你们和我们之间有争议的各点上随心所欲地解释和强制实施ˇ法。不管怎样ˇ你们要麽掌权ˇ要麽覆灭。

这说穿了就是你们要对我们说的话。也许你们会说ˇ对于这个有争议的ˇ法问题ˇ最高法院正作出对你们有利的判决。不见得吧。但是ˇ撇开法学家关于“法官的意见”和“判决”两者之间的区别不谈ˇ最高法院已经多少对这个问题给你们作出了决定。法院实质上是说你们ˇ有ˇ法规定的权利ˇ把奴隶带进联邦各 准州ˇ并且把他们留在那里作爲你们的财産。

我说多少作出了决定ˇ意思是说决定是在一个分裂爲两派的法院ˇ由法官的微弱多数作出的。他们对于作出决定的理由ˇ看法各不ˇ同。由于这个判决是这样作出的ˇ致使那些自认是这个判决的支持者们对其意义也有不同的看法。而且它主要是依据一个不实之词ˇ即那个意见中所说的ˇ“对奴隶的财産权是ˇ法专门地和明确地规定的。”

把ˇ法仔细研究一下ˇ就可以看到它里面对奴隶的财産权并没有作专门的和明确的规定……

如果他们只是用法官的见解说这种权利在文件里是含蓄地获得肯定的ˇ这样别人就会说ˇ法里既找不到“奴隶”ˇ也找ˇ不到“奴隶制”这个词ˇ甚至与暗指奴隶或奴隶制这类东西有关的“财産”这个词也没有ˇ文件中凡暗指奴隶的地方ˇ都称他爲“人”ˇ凡是指奴隶主对他的合法权利的地方ˇ都称爲“应得的劳役或劳力”ˇˇ称爲可用劳役或劳力偿付的“债务”。同样也可以用当时的历史来证明ˇ用这种暗指奴隶和奴隶制的方法ˇ而不是明说出来ˇ是有目的的ˇ就是不让ˇ法里有一种可以把人当财産的ˇ法……

在所有这些情况下ˇ你是不是真以爲自己有理由搞垮这个政府ˇ除非大家马上服从ˇ你们那样的法院判决ˇ把它作爲政治行动的结论性的和最后的准则?但是ˇ你们不能容忍一个共和党入当选爲总统!你们说ˇ如果发生那种情况ˇ你们就要搞垮联邦ˇ你们说ˇ那时ˇ搞垮联邦的严重罪名就会落在我们头上!妙极了。一个拦路强盗用手枪指住我的脑袋ˇ咬牙切齿地说ˇ“留下买路钱ˇ不然我就打死你ˇ那时你将是一个杀人犯ˇ”……

ˇ在再来ˇ共和党人说几句话。让这个伟大联邦所有各部分都太太平平ˇ彼此和睦ˇ处ˇ这是最合乎理ˇ的。我们共和党人应该尽力做到这一点。尽管我们受到很大挑衅ˇ也不要意气用事。即使南方人不愿意听我们的话ˇ我们还是要冷静地考虑他们的要求ˇ如果审慎地考虑到我们的职责ˇ可能的话应当接受他们的要求。我们要根据他们所说和所做的一切ˇ以及他们和我们争端的原因和性质ˇ尽可能决定哪些事情可以使他们满意。

如果使各准州无条件服从他们ˇ他们会满意吗?我们知道他们是不会满意的。在他们目前对我们的一切责难中ˇ几乎没有提到 准州。目前叫得最起劲的是入侵和造反。如果今后证明我们同入侵和造反毫无牵连ˇ他们会满意吗?我们知道他们是不会满意的。我们之所以知道是因爲我们从来没有同入侵和造反有过牵连。可是尽管我们毫无牵连ˇ还是免不了受到攻击和责难。

问题又来了ˇ究竟什麽才能使他们满意呢?……这个ˇ只有这个ˇ不再说奴隶制是错误的。要和他们一起说奴隶制是正确的。而且这必须做得彻底ˇˇ不但在口头而且在行动上都要做到。他们是不会容忍我们沉默的ˇˇ我们必须公开宣布和他们站在一起。道格拉斯参议员的新煽动叛乱法必须得到通过和实施ˇ一切有关奴隶制是错误的言论ˇ无论是在政纲里、在报刊上、在讲坛上ˇ或是在私下发表的ˇ都必须禁止。我们必须欢欢喜喜地把他们逃亡的奴隶抓住ˇ送回原主。我们必须取ˇ各自由州的ˇ法。整个气氛必须肃清一切反对奴隶制的影ˇˇ只有这样做以后ˇ他们才不再认爲他们的一切麻烦都是从我们这里来的……

他们既然认爲奴隶制在道德上是正确的ˇ而且在社会上是高尚的ˇ他们就不会停止要求全国把奴隶制当作一种合法权利和社会幸福加以承认。

我们也只有坚信奴隶制是错误的这个立场才能正当地制止这种情况。如果奴隶制是正确的ˇ一切反对奴隶制的言语、行爲、法律和ˇ法本身就是错误的ˇ必须加以制止和肃清。如果奴隶制是正确的ˇ我们反对它推行到全国推行到全世界ˇ就不合理ˇ如果奴隶制是错误的ˇ他们硬要将之推广ˇˇ扩大ˇ那就不合理。如果我们认爲奴隶制是正确的ˇ他们的一切要求我们都愿意答应ˇ如果他们认爲奴隶制是错误的ˇ我们的一切要求他们也都愿意答应。他们认爲奴隶制是正确的ˇ我们认爲奴隶制是错误的ˇ这就是整个争端的症结。他们认爲奴隶制是正确的ˇ这就难怪他们希望把奴隶制当作正确的东西予以充分肯定。但是ˇ我们认爲奴隶制是错误的ˇ我们能ˇ他们屈服吗?我们能根据他们的观点来投票反对我们自己的观点吗?鉴 于我们在道德上、社会上和政治上的责任ˇ我们能这样做吗?

虽然我们认爲奴隶制是错误的ˇ但是在实行奴隶制的地方ˇ我们还是可以随它去ˇ因爲那是出于它在国内实际存在的需要。可是ˇ投票可以制止奴隶制时ˇ难道我们能容许它扩展到各 准州ˇ并且到这些自由州来侵扰我们吗?

如果我们的责任感不允许这样ˇ那麽就让我们无畏地和有效地坚持我们的责任吧。决不要被那些一直困扰着我们的精心策划的诡计转移我们的方ˇˇ这些诡计多得很ˇ例如在是和非之间找一个中间立场ˇ这就ˇ找一个既不是死人也不是活人的人一样枉费心机ˇ就好ˇ对一个所有正直的人都要关心的问题采取“不在乎”的政策ˇ就ˇ是以联邦的名义呼吁真正拥护联邦的人服从分裂主义者ˇ把神圣的原则颠倒过来ˇ不是叫有罪的人悔改ˇ反而叫正直的人悔改ˇ就ˇ是要召请华盛顿的亡灵ˇ恳求人们收回他所说的话ˇ取ˇ他所做的事。

同样不要让不实的指责使我们偏离我们的责任ˇ也不要被搞垮政府或把我们送入地牢的威胁吓得不敢履行我们的责任。我们要坚信正义即力量ˇ并且在这个信念指引下ˇ敢于ˇ我们所理解的那样ˇ把我们的责任履行到底。

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.