太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > the writings-3 >

第2节

the writings-3-第2节

小说: the writings-3 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!






Thirdly; 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 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; wither 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 to afterward come in; and declare the perfect

freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all。  Why was the

amendment; expressly declaring the right of the people; 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 reargument? 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 preconcert。  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 mortises 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 yet to 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。



It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska Bill the people

of a State as well as Territory were to be left 〃perfectly free;〃

〃subject only to the Constitution。〃 Why mention a State? They

were legislating for Territories; and not for or about States。

Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to

the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this

lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a

Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together; and

their relation to the Constitution therefore treated as being

precisely the same? 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 is a mere omission; but who can be

quite sure; if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the

opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State

to exclude slavery from their limits; just as Chase and Mace

sought to get such declaration; in behalf of the people of a

Territory; into the Nebraska Bill;I ask; who can be quite sure

that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had

been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring

the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson。  He

approaches it more than once; Using the precise idea; and almost

the language; too; of the Nebraska Act。  On one occasion; his

exact language is; 〃Except in cases where the power is restrained

by the Constitution of the United States; the law of the State is

supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction。〃  In

what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United

States Constitution; is left an open question; precisely as the

same question; as to the restraint on the power of the

Territories; was left open in the Nebraska Act。  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 friends; and yet

whisper to us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest

instrument there is with which to effect that object。  They wish

us to infer all; from the fact 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 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。  A leading Douglas Democratic

newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to

resist the revival of the African slave trade。  Does Douglas

believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching?  He has

not said so。  Does he really think so?  But if it is; how can he

resist it?  For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right

of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories。  Can

he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where

they can be bought cheapest?  And unquestionably they can be

bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia。  He has done all in

his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a

mere right of property; and; as such; how can he oppose the

foreign slave trade; how can he refuse that trade in that

〃property〃 shall be 〃perfectly free;〃unless he does it as a

protection to the home production?  And as the home producers

will probably not ask the protection; he will be wholly without a

ground of opposition。



Senator Douglas holds; we know; that a man may rightfully be

wiser to…day than he was yesterday; that he may rightfully change

when he finds himself wrong。  But can we; for that reason; run

ahead; and infer that he will make any particular change; of

which he himself has given no intimation?  Can we safely base our

action upon any such vague inference?  Now; as ever; I wish not

to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position; question his motives;

or do aught that can be personally offensive to h

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的