the writings-3-第9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!
these main points; to be sure; are their thunderings of cannon;
their marching and music; their fizzlegigs and fireworks; but I
will not waste time with them。 They are but the little trappings
of the campaign。
Coming to the substance;the first point;〃popular sovereignty。〃
It is to be labeled upon the cars in which he travels; put upon
the hacks he rides in; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes
under; and the banners which wave over him。 It is to be dished
up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soups from
potatoes。 Now; as this is so great a staple of the plan of the
campaign; it is worth while to examine it carefully; and if we
examine only a very little; and do not allow ourselves to be
misled; we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most
arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a community。 What
is the matter of popular sovereignty? The first thing; in order
to understand it; is to get a good definition of what it is; and
after that to see how it is applied。
I suppose almost every one knows that; in this controversy;
whatever has been said has had reference to the question of negro
slavery。 We have not been in a controversy about the right of
the people to govern themselves in the ordinary matters of
domestic concern in the States and Territories。 Mr。 Buchanan; in
one of his late messages (I think when he sent up the Lecompton
Constitution) urged that the main point to which the public
attention had been directed was not in regard to the great
variety of small domestic matters; but was directed to the
question of negro slavery; and he asserts that if the people had
had a fair chance to vote on that question there was no
reasonable ground of objection in regard to minor questions。
Now; while I think that the people had not had given; or offered;
them a fair chance upon that slavery question; still; if there
had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question; the
President's proposition would have been true to the utmost。
Hence; when hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty; I wish to
be understood as applying what I say to the question of slavery
only; not to other minor domestic matters of a Territory or a
State。
Does Judge Douglas; when he says that several of the past years
of his life have been devoted to the question of 〃popular
sovereignty;〃 and that all the remainder of his life shall be
devoted to it; does he mean to say that he has been devoting his
life to securing to the people of the Territories the right to
exclude slavery from the Territories? If he means so to say he
means to deceive; because he and every one knows that the
decision of the Supreme Court; which he approves and makes
especial ground of attack upon me for disapproving; forbids the
people of a Territory to exclude slavery。 This covers the whole
ground; from the settlement of a Territory till it reaches the
degree of maturity entitling it to form a State Constitution。 So
far as all that ground is concerned; the Judge is not sustaining
popular sovereignty; but absolutely opposing it。 He sustains the
decision which declares that the popular will of the Territory
has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their
territorial existence。 This being so; the period of time from
the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of
forming a State Constitution is not the thing that the Judge has
fought for or is fighting for; but; on the contrary; he has
fought for; and is fighting for; the thing that annihilates and
crushes out that same popular sovereignty。
Well; so much being disposed of; what is left? Why; he is
contending for the right of the people; when they come to make a
State Constitution; to make it for themselves; and precisely as
best suits themselves。 I say again; that is quixotic。 I defy
contradiction when I declare that the Judge can find no one to
oppose him on that proposition。 I repeat; there is nobody
opposing that proposition on principle。 Let me not be
misunderstood。 I know that; with reference to the Lecompton
Constitution; I may be misunderstood; but when you understand me
correctly; my proposition will be true and accurate。 Nobody is
opposing; or has opposed; the right of the people; when they form
a constitution; to form it for themselves。 Mr。 Buchanan and his
friends have not done it; they; too; as well as the Republicans
and the Anti…Lecompton Democrats; have not done it; but on the
contrary; they together have insisted on the right of the people
to form a constitution for themselves。 The difference between
the Buchanan men on the one hand; and the Douglas men and the
Republicans on the other; has not been on a question of
principle; but on a question of fact。
The dispute was upon the question of fact; whether the Lecompton
Constitution had been fairly formed by the people or not。 Mr。
Buchanan and his friends have not contended for the contrary
principle any more than the Douglas men or the Republicans。 They
have insisted that whatever of small irregularities existed in
getting up the Lecompton Constitution were such as happen in the
settlement of all new Territories。 The question was; Was it a
fair emanation of the people? It was a question of fact; and not
of principle。 As to the principle; all were agreed。 Judge
Douglas voted with the Republicans upon that matter of fact。
He and they; by their voices and votes; denied that it was a fair
emanation of the people。 The Administration affirmed that it
was。 With respect to the evidence bearing upon that question of
fact; I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had
the right on their side; and that the Administration was wrong。
But I state again that; as a matter of principle; there is no
dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory; merging into a
State; to form a constitution for themselves without outside
interference from any quarter。 This being so; what is Judge
Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his
life in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes?
Does he expect to stand up in majestic dignity; and go through
his apotheosis and become a god in the maintaining of a principle
which neither man nor mouse in all God's creation is opposing?
Now something in regard to the Lecompton Constitution more
specially; for I pass from this other question of popular
sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been
attempted on an intelligent community。
As to the Lecompton Constitution; I have already said that on the
question of fact; as to whether it was a fair emanation of the
people or not; Judge Douglas; with the Republicans and some
Americans; had greatly the argument against the Administration;
and while I repeat this; I wish to know what there is in the
opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution that
entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it;as being
par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition。 I agree
to the rightfulness of his opposition。 He in the Senate and his
class of men there formed the number three and no more。 In the
House of Representatives his class of menthe Anti…Lecompton
Democratsformed a number of about twenty。 It took one hundred
and twenty to defeat the measure; against one hundred and twelve。
Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty; Judge Douglas's
friends furnished twenty; to add to which there were six
Americans and ninety…four Republicans。 I do not say that I am
precisely accurate in their numbers; but I am sufficiently so for
any use I am making of it。
Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of
doing that work; and the hundred none of it? Why; if; as Judge
Douglas says; the honor is to be divided and due credit is to be
given to other parties; why is just so much given as is consonant
with the wishes; the interests; and advancement of the twenty?
My understanding is; when a common job is done; or a common
enterprise prosecuted; if I put in five dollars to your one; I
have a right to take out five dollars to your one。 But he does
not so understand it。 He declares the dividend of credit for
defeating Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and
incomprehensible。
Let us see。 Lecompton in the raw was defeated。 It afterward
took a sort of cooked…up shape; and was passed in the English
bill。 It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a good and
proper thing。 If it was a good thing; why is he entitled to more
credit than others for the performance of that good act; unless
there was something in the antecedents of the Republicans that
might induce every one to expect them to join in that good work;
and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he
would? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground
that he performed a good act which was never expected of him? H