the writings-4-第24节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



the　Dred　Scott　decision；　that　the　people　of　the　Territories　can　still

somehow　exclude　slavery。　　The　first　thing　I　ask　attention　to　is　the

fact　that　Judge　Douglas　constantly　said；　before　the　decision；　that

whether　they　could　or　not；　was　a　question　for　the　Supreme　Court。　　But

after　the　court　had　made　the　decision　he　virtually　says　it　is　not　a

question　for　the　Supreme　Court；　but　for　the　people。　　And　how　is　it　he

tells　us　they　can　exclude　it？　　He　says　it　needs　〃police　regulations；〃

and　that　admits　of　〃unfriendly　legislation。〃　　Although　it　is　a　right

established　by　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　to　take　a　slave

into　a　Territory　of　the　United　States　and　hold　him　as　property；　yet

unless　the　Territorial　Legislature　will　give　friendly　legislation；

and　more　especially　if　they　adopt　unfriendly　legislation；　they　can

practically　exclude　him。　　Now；　without　meeting　this　proposition　as　a

matter　of　fact；　I　pass　to　consider　the　real　constitutional

obligation。　　Let　me　take　the　gentleman　who　looks　me　in　the　face

before　me；　and　let　us　suppose　that　he　is　a　member　of　the　Territorial

Legislature。　　The　first　thing　he　will　do　will　be　to　swear　that　he

will　support　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　His　neighbor　by

his　side　in　the　Territory　has　slaves　and　needs　Territorial

legislation　to　enable　him　to　enjoy　that　constitutional　right。　　Can　he

withhold　the　legislation　which　his　neighbor　needs　for　the　enjoyment

of　a　right　which　is　fixed　in　his　favor　in　the　Constitution　of　the

United　States　which　he　has　sworn　to　support？　　Can　he　withhold　it

without　violating　his　oath？　　And；　more　especially；　can　he　pass

unfriendly　legislation　to　violate　his　oath？　　Why；　this　is　a　monstrous

sort　of　talk　about　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States！　　There　has

never　been　as　outlandish　or　lawless　a　doctrine　from　the　mouth　of　any

respectable　man　on　earth。　　I　do　not　believe　it　is　a　constitutional

right　to　hold　slaves　in　a　Territory　of　the　United　States。　　I　believe

the　decision　was　improperly　made　and　I　go　for　reversing　it。　　Judge

Douglas　is　furious　against　those　who　go　for　reversing　a　decision。

But　he　is　for　legislating　it　out　of　all　force　while　the　law　itself

stands。　　I　repeat　that　there　has　never　been　so　monstrous　a　doctrine

uttered　from　the　mouth　of　a　respectable　man。



I　suppose　most　of　us　（I　know　it　of　myself）　believe　that　the　people　of

the　Southern　States　are　entitled　to　a　Congressional　Fugitive　Slave

law；that　is　a　right　fixed　in　the　Constitution。　　But　it　cannot　be

made　available　to　them　without　Congressional　legislation。　　In　the

Judge's　language；　it　is　a　〃barren　right；〃　which　needs　legislation

before　it　can　become　efficient　and　valuable　to　the　persons　to　whom　it

is　guaranteed。　　And　as　the　right　is　constitutional；　I　agree　that　the

legislation　shall　be　granted　to　it；　and　that　not　that　we　like　the

institution　of　slavery。　　We　profess　to　have　no　taste　for　running　and

catching　niggers；　at　least；　I　profess　no　taste　for　that　job　at　all。

Why　then　do　I　yield　support　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law？　　Because　I　do

not　understand　that　the　Constitution；　which　guarantees　that　right；

can　be　supported　without　it。　　And　if　I　believed　that　the　right　to

hold　a　slave　in　a　Territory　was　equally　fixed　in　the　Constitution

with　the　right　to　reclaim　fugitives；　I　should　be　bound　to　give　it　the

legislation　necessary　to　support　it。　　I　say　that　no　man　can　deny　his

obligation　to　give　the　necessary　legislation　to　support　slavery　in　a

Territory；　who　believes　it　is　a　constitutional　right　to　have　it

there。　　No　man　can；　who　does　not　give　the　Abolitionists　an　argument

to　deny　the　obligation　enjoined　by　the　Constitution　to　enact　a

Fugitive　State　law。　　Try　it　now。　　It　is　the　strongest　Abolition

argument　ever　made。　　I　say　if　that　Dred　Scott　decision　is　correct；

then　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　a　Territory　is　equally　a

constitutional　right　with　the　right　of　a　slaveholder　to　have　his

runaway　returned。　　No　one　can　show　the　distinction　between　them。　　The

one　is　express；　so　that　we　cannot　deny　it。　　The　other　is　construed　to

be　in　the　Constitution；　so　that　he　who　believes　the　decision　to　be

correct　believes　in　the　right。　　And　the　man　who　argues　that　by

unfriendly　legislation；　in　spite　of　that　constitutional　right；

slavery　may　be　driven　from　the　Territories；　cannot　avoid　furnishing

an　argument　by　which　Abolitionists　may　deny　the　obligation　to　return

fugitives；　and　claim　the　power　to　pass　laws　unfriendly　to　the　right

of　the　slaveholder　to　reclaim　his　fugitive。　　I　do　not　know　how　such

an　arguement　may　strike　a　popular　assembly　like　this；　but　I　defy

anybody　to　go　before　a　body　of　men　whose　minds　are　educated　to

estimating　evidence　and　reasoning；　and　show　that　there　is　an　iota　of

difference　between　the　constitutional　right　to　reclaim　a　fugitive　and

the　constitutional　right　to　hold　a　slave；　in　a　Territory；　provided

this　Dred　Scott　decision　is　correct；　I　defy　any　man　to　make　an

argument　that　will　justify　unfriendly　legislation　to　deprive　a

slaveholder　of　his　right　to　hold　his　slave　in　a　Territory；　that　will

not　equally；　in　all　its　length；　breadth；　and　thickness；　furnish　an

argument　for　nullifying　the　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　Why；　there　is　not

such　an　Abolitionist　in　the　nation　as　Douglas；　after　all！











End　of　Volume　4