the writings-2- 第30部分

were　still　determined　to　find　some　way　to　restrain　slavery　from

getting　into　the　new　country。　　This　new　acquisition　lay　directly

west　of　our　old　purchase　from　France；　and　extended　west　to　the

Pacific　Ocean；　and　was　so　situated　that　if　the　Missouri　line

should　be　extended　straight　west；　the　new　country　would　be

divided　by　such　extended　line；　leaving　some　north　and　some　south

of　it。　　On　Judge　Douglas's　motion；　a　bill；　or　provision　of　a

bill；　passed　the　Senate　to　so　extend　the　Missouri　line。　　The

proviso　men　in　the　House；　including　myself；　voted　it　down；

because；　by　implication；　it　gave　up　the　southern　part　to　slavery；

while　we　were　bent　on　having　it　all　free。



In　the　fall　of　1848　the　gold…mines　were　discovered　in　California。

This　attracted　people　to　it　with　unprecedented　rapidity；　so　that

on；　or　soon　after；　the　meeting　of　the　new　Congress　in　December；

1849；　she　already　had　a　population　of　nearly　a　hundred　thousand；

had　called　a　convention；　formed　a　State　constitution　excluding

slavery；　and　was　knocking　for　admission　into　the　Union。　　The

proviso　men；　of　course；　were　for　letting　her　in；　but　the　Senate；

always　true　to　the　other　side；　would　not　consent　to　her

admission；　and　there　California　stood；　kept　out　of　the　Union

because　she　would　not　let　slavery　into　her　borders。　　Under　all

the　circumstances；　perhaps；　this　was　not　wrong。　　There　were　other

points　of　dispute　connected　with　the　general　question　of　Slavery；

which　equally　needed　adjustment。　　The　South　clamored　for　a　more

efficient　fugitive　slave　law。　　The　North　clamored　for　the

abolition　of　a　peculiar　species　of　slave　trade　in　the　District　of

Columbia；　in　connection　with　which；　in　view　from　the　windows　of

the　Capitol；　a　sort　of　negro　livery…stable；　where　droves　of

negroes　were　collected；　temporarily　kept；　and　finally　taken　to

Southern　markets；　precisely　like　droves　of　horses；　had　been

openly　maintained　for　fifty　years。　　Utah　and　New　Mexico　needed

territorial　governments；　and　whether　slavery　should　or　should　not

be　prohibited　within　them　was　another　question。　　The　indefinite

western　boundary　of　Texas　was　to　be　settled。　　She　was　a　slave

State；　and　consequently　the　farther　west　the　slavery　men　could

push　her　boundary；　the　more　slave　country　they　secured；　and　the

farther　east　the　slavery　opponents　could　thrust　the　boundary

back；　the　less　slave　ground　was　secured。　　Thus　this　was　just　as

clearly　a　slavery　question　as　any　of　the　others。



These　points　all　needed　adjustment；　and　they　were　held　up；

perhaps　wisely；　to　make　them　help　adjust　one　another。　　The　Union

now；　as　in　1820；　was　thought　to　be　in　danger；　and　devotion　to　the

Union　rightfully　inclined　men　to　yield　somewhat　in　points　where

nothing　else　could　have　so　inclined　them。　　A　compromise　was

finally　effected。　　The　South　got　their　new　fugitive　slave　law；

and　the　North　got　California；　（by　far　the　best　part　of　our

acquisition　from　Mexico）　as　a　free　State。　　The　South　got　a

provision　that　New　Mexico　and　Utah；　when　admitted　as　States；　may

come　in　with　or　without　slavery　as　they　may　then　choose；　and　the

North　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of　Columbia。。

The　North　got　the　western　boundary　of　Texas　thrown　farther　back

eastward　than　the　South　desired；　but；　in　turn；　they　gave　Texas

ten　millions　of　dollars　with　which　to　pay　her　old　debts。　　This　is

the　Compromise　of　1850。



Preceding　the　Presidential　election　of　1852；　each　of　the　great

political　parties；　Democrats　and　Whigs；　met　in　convention　and

adopted　resolutions　indorsing　the　Compromise　of　'50；　as　a

〃finality；〃　a　final　settlement；　so　far　as　these　parties　could

make　it　so；　of　all　slavery　agitation。　　Previous　to　this；　in　1851；

the　Illinois　Legislature　had　indorsed　it。



During　this　long　period　of　time；　Nebraska　（the　Nebraska

Territory；　not　the　State　of　as　we　know　it　now）　had　remained

substantially　an　uninhabited　country；　but　now　emigration　to　and

settlement　within　it　began　to　take　place。　　It　is　about　one　third

as　large　as　the　present　United　States；　and　its　importance；　so

long　overlooked；　begins　to　come　into　view。　　The　restriction　of

slavery　by　the　Missouri　Compromise　directly　applies　to　itin

fact　was　first　made；　and　has　since　been　maintained　expressly　for

it。　　In　1853；　a　bill　to　give　it　a　territorial　government　passed

the　House　of　Representatives；　and；　in　the　hands　of　Judge　Douglas；

failed　of　passing　only　for　want　of　time。　　This　bill　contained　no

repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　Indeed；　when　it　was　assailed

because　it　did　not　contain　such　repeal；　Judge　Douglas　defended　it

in　its　existing　form。　　On　January　4；　1854；　Judge　Douglas

introduces　a　new　bill　to　give　Nebraska　territorial　government。

He　accompanies　this　bill　with　a　report；　in　which　last　he

expressly　recommends　that　the　Missouri　Compromise　shall　neither

be　affirmed　nor　repealed。　　Before　long　the　bill　is　so　modified　as

to　make　two　territories　instead　of　one；　calling　the　southern　one

Kansas。



Also；　about　a　month　after　the　introduction　of　the　bill；　on　the

Judge's　own　motion　it　is　so　amended　as　to　declare　the　Missouri

Compromise　inoperative　and　void；　and；　substantially；　that　the

people　who　go　and　settle　there　may　establish　slavery；　or　exclude

it；　as　they　may　see　fit。　　In　this　shape　the　bill　passed　both

branches　of　Congress　and　became　a　law。



This　is　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　The　foregoing

history　may　not　be　precisely　accurate　in　every　particular；　but　I

am　sure　it　is　sufficiently　so　for　all　the　use　I　shall　attempt　to

make　of　it；　and　in　it　we　have　before　us　the　chief　material

enabling　us　to　judge　correctly　whether　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise　is　right　or　wrong。　　I　think；　and　shall　try　to　show；

that　it　is　wrongwrong　in　its　direct　effect；　letting　slavery

into　Kansas　and　Nebraska；　and　wrong　in　its　prospective　principle；

allowing　it　to　spread　to　every　other　part　of　the　wide　world　where

men　can　be　found　inclined　to　take　it。



This　declared　indifference；　but；　as　I　must　think；　covert　real

zeal；　for　the　spread　of　slavery；　I　cannot　but　hate。　　I　hate　it

because　of　the　monstrous　injustice　of　slavery　itself。　　I　hate　it

because　it　deprives　our　republican　example　of　its　just　influence

in　the　world；　enables　the　enemies　of　free　institutions　with

plausibility　to　taunt　us　as　hypocrites；　causes　the　real　friends

of　freedom　to　doubt　our　sincerity；　and　especially　because　it

forces　so　many　good　men　among　ourselves　into　an　open　war　with　the

very　fundamental　principles　of　civil　liberty；　criticizing　the

Declaration　of　Independence；　and　insisting　that　there　is　no　right

principle　of　action　but　self…interest。



Before　proceeding　let　me　say　that　I　think　I　have　no　prejudice

against　the　Southern　people。　　They　are　just　what　we　would　be　in

their　situation。　　If　slavery　did　not　now　exist　among　them；　they

would　not　introduce　it。　　If　it　did　now　exist　among　us；　we　should

not　instantly　give　it　up。　　This　I　believe　of　the　masses　North　and

South。　　Doubtless　there　are　individuals　on　both　sides　who　would

not　hold　slaves　under　any　circumstances；　and　others　who　would

gladly　introduce　slavery　anew　if　it　were　out　of　existence。　　We

know　that　some　Southern　men　do　free　their　slaves；　go　North　and

become　tip…top　abolitionists；　while　some　Northern　ones　go　South

and　become　most　cruel　slave　masters。



When　Southern　people　tell　us　that　they　are　no　more　responsible

for　the　origin　of　slavery　than　we　are；　I　acknowledge　the　fact。

When　it　is　said　that　the　institution　exists；　and　that　it　is　very

difficult　to　get　rid　of　it　in　any　satisfactory　way；　I　can

understand　and　appreciate　the　saying。　　I　surely　will　not　blame

them　for　not　doing　what　I　should　not　know　how　to　do　myself。　　If

all　earthly　power　were　given　me；　I　should　not　know　what　to　do　as

to　the　existing　institution。　　My　first　impulse　would　be　to　free

all　the　slaves；　and　send　them　to　Liberia；　to　their　own　native

land。　　But　a　moment's　reflection　would　convince　me　that　whatever

of　high　hope　（as　I　think　there　is）　there　may　be　in　this　in　the

long　run；　its　sudden　execution　is　impossible。　　If　they　were　all

landed　there　in　a　day；　they　would　all　perish　in　the　next　ten

days；　and　there　are　not　surplus　shipping　and　surplus　money　enough

to　carry　them　there　in　many　times　ten　days。　　What　then？　　Free

them　all；　and　keep　them　among　us　as　underlings？　　Is　it　quite

certain　that　this　betters　their　condition？　　I　think　I　would　not

hold　one　in　slavery　at　any　rate；　yet　the　point　is　not　clear

enough　for　me　to　denounce　people　upon。　　What　next？　　Free　them；

and　make　them　politically　and　socially　our　equals？　　My　own

feelings　will　not　admit　of　this；　and　if　mine　would；　we　well　know

that　those　of　the　great　mass　of　whites　will　not。　　Whether　this

feeling　accords　with　justice　and　sound　judgment　is　not　the　sole

question；　if　indeed　it　is　any　part　of　it。　　A　universal　feeling；

whether　well　or　ill　founded；　cannot　be　safely　disregarded。　　We

cannot　then　make　them　equals。　　It　does　seem　to　me　that　systems　of

gradual　emancipation　might　be　adopted；　but　for　their　tardiness　in

this　I　will　not　undertake　to　judge　our　brethren　of　the　South。



When　they　remind　us　of　their　constitutional　rights；　I　acknowledge

themnot　grudgingly；　but　fully　and　fairly；　and　I　would　give　them

any　legislation　for　the　reclaiming　of　their　fugitives　which

should　not　in　its　stringency　be　more　likely　to　carry　a　free　man

into　slavery　than　our　ordinary　criminal　laws　are　to　hang　an

innocent　one。



But　all　this；　to　my　judgment；　furnishes　no　more　excuse　for

permitting　slavery　to　go　into　our　own　free　territory　than　it

would　for　reviving　the　African　slave　trade　by　law。　　The　law　which

forbids　the　bringing　of　slaves　from　Africa；　and　that　which　has　so

long　forbidden　the　taking　of　them　into　Nebraska；　can　hardy　be

distinguished　on　any　moral　principle；　and　the　repeal　of　the

former　could　find　quite　as　plausible　excuses　as　that　of　the

latter。



The　arguments　by　which　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is

sought　to　be　ju