太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the writings-4 >

第9节

the writings-4-第9节

小说: the writings-4 字数: 每页4000字

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!




patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that this Nebraska

Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all。



The Judge tells; in proceeding; that he is opposed to making any

odious distinctions between free and slave States。  I am altogether

unaware that the Republicans are in favor of making any odious

distinctions between the free and slave States。  But there is still a

difference; I think; between Judge Douglas and the Republicans in

this。  I suppose that the real difference between Judge Douglas and

his friends; and the Republicans on the contrary; is; that the Judge

is not in favor of making any difference between slavery and liberty;

that he is in favor of eradicating; of pressing out of view; the

questions of preference in this country for free or slave

institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discards the

idea that there is any wrong in slavery。  Everything that emanates

from him or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully

excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery。  All

their arguments; if you will consider them; will be seen to exclude

the thought that there is anything whatever wrong in slavery。  If you

will take the Judge's speeches; and select the short and pointed

sentences expressed by him;as his declaration that he 〃don't care

whether slavery is voted up or down;〃you will see at once that this

is perfectly logical; if you do not admit that slavery is wrong。  If

you do admit that it is wrong; Judge Douglas cannot logically say he

don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down。  Judge Douglas

declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to

have it。  He can say that logically; if he says that there is no

wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it; he

cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong。  He

insists that upon the score of equality the owners of slaves and

owners of propertyof horses and every other sort of property

should be alike; and hold them alike in a new Territory。  That is

perfectly logical if the two species of property are alike and are

equally founded in right。  But if you admit that one of them is

wrong; you cannot institute any equality between right and wrong。

And from this difference of sentiment;the belief on the part of one

that the institution is wrong; and a policy springing from that

belief which looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong;

and this other sentiment; that it is no wrong; and a policy sprung

from that sentiment; which will tolerate no idea of preventing the

wrong from growing larger; and looks to there never being an end to

it through all the existence of things;arises the real difference

between Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and the

Republicans on the other。  Now; I confess myself as belonging to that

class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral; social; and

political evil; having due regard for its actual existence amongst us

and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way;

and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown

about it; but; nevertheless; desire a policy that looks to the

prevention of it as a wrong; and looks hopefully to the time when as

a wrong it may come to an end。



Judge Douglas has again; for; I believe; the fifth time; if not the

seventh; in my presence; reiterated his charge of a conspiracy or

combination between the National Democrats and Republicans。  What

evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I know not; inasmuch as

he never favors us with any。  I have said upon a former occasion; and

I do not choose to suppress it now; that I have no objection to the

division in the Judge's party。  He got it up himself。  It was all his

and their work。  He had; I think; a great deal more to do with the

steps that led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr。 Buchanan had;

though at last; when they reached it; they quarreled over it; and

their friends divided upon it。  I am very free to confess to Judge

Douglas that I have no objection to the division; but I defy the

Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that

division; unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely

saying so。  I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to

understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to that

division。  Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of the

Democratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore?  I guess

you do。  Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also

that he was at the time very glad of it; and then he will be able to

see all there is between the National Democrats and the Republicans。

What we now think of the two divisions of Democrats; you then thought

of the Fremont and Fillmore divisions。  That is all there is of it。



But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there

is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the

National Democrats; I now want to enter my protest against receiving

him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject。  I want to

call to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first

one of these

debates; at Ottawa; on the 21st of August。  In order to fix extreme

Abolitionism upon me; Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which

he declared had been passed by a Republican State Convention; in

October; 1854; at Springfield; Illinois; and he declared I had taken

part in that Convention。  It turned out that although a few men

calling themselves an anti…Nebraska State Convention had sat at

Springfield about that time; yet neither did I take any part in it;

nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as Judge

Douglas read。  So apparent had it become that the resolutions which

he read had not been passed at Springfield at all; nor by a State

Convention in which I had taken part; that seven days afterward; at

Freeport; Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled by Charles

H。  Lanphier; editor of the State Register; and Thomas L。  Harris;

member of Congress in that district; and he promised in that speech

that when he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter。

Since then Judge Douglas has been to Springfield; and I presume has

made the investigation; but a month has passed since he has been

there; and; so far as I know; he has made no report of the result of

his investigation。  I have waited as I think sufficient time for the

report of that investigation; and I have some curiosity to see and

hear it。  A fraud; an absolute forgery was committed; and the

perpetration of it was traced to the three;Lanphier; Harris; and

Douglas。  Whether it can be narrowed in any way so as to exonerate

any one of them; is what Judge Douglas's report would probably show。



It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas were

published in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October;

1854; as being the resolutions of an anti…Nebraska Convention which

had sat in that same month of October; at Springfield。  But it is

also true that the publication in the Register was a forgery then;

and the question is still behind; which of the three; if not all of

them; committed that forgery。  The idea that it was done by mistake

is absurd。  The article in the Illinois State Register contains part

of the real proceedings of that Springfield Convention; showing that

the writer of the article had the real proceedings before him; and

purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention

and fraudulently substituted the others。  Lanphier then; as now; was

the editor of the Register; so that there seems to be but little room

for his escape。  But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had

less interest in the object of that forgery than either of the other

two。  The main object of that forgery at that time was to beat Yates

and elect Harris to Congress; and that object was known to be

exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time。  Harris and Douglas

were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session; and

although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register;

subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon

that Convention。



The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion; both

Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to

put it to new uses。  As the fisherman's wife; whose drowned husband

was brought home with his body full of eels; said when she was asked

what was to be done with him; 〃Take the eels out and set him again;〃

so Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out

of that stale fraud by which they gained Harris's election; and set

the fraud again more than once。  On the 9th of July; 1856; Douglas

attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate

of the United States; as will appear from the appendix o

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的