the writings-2- 第31部分

latter。



The　arguments　by　which　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is

sought　to　be　justified　are　these：



First。　　That　the　Nebraska　country　needed　a　territorial

government。



Second。　　That　in　various　ways　the　public　had　repudiated　that

compromise　and　demanded　the　repeal；　and　therefore　should　not　now

complain　of　it。



　And；　lastly；　That　the　repeal　establishes　a　principle　which　is

intrinsically　right。



I　will　attempt　an　answer　to　each　of　them　in　its　turn。



First；　then：　If　that　country　was　in　need　of　a　territorial

organization；　could　it　not　have　had　it　as　well　without　as　with　a

repeal？　　Iowa　and　Minnesota；　to　both　of　which　the　Missouri

restriction　applied；

had；　without　its　repeal；　each　in　succession；　territorial

organizations。　　And　even　the　year　before；　a　bill　for　Nebraska

itself　was　within　an　ace　of　passing　without　the　repealing　clause；

and　this　in　the　hands　of　the　same　men　who　are　now　the　champions

of　repeal。　　Why　no　necessity　then　for　repeal？　　But　still　later；

when　this　very　bill　was　first　brought　in；　it　contained　no　repeal。

But；　say　they；　because　the　people　had　demanded；　or　rather

commanded；　the　repeal；　the　repeal　was　to　accompany　the

organization　whenever　that　should　occur。



Now；　I　deny　that　the　public　ever　demanded　any　such　thingever

repudiated　the　Missouri　Compromise；　ever　commanded　its　repeal。　　I

deny　it；　and　call　for　the　proof。　　It　is　not　contended；　I　believe；

that　any　such　command　has　ever　been　given　in　express　terms。　　It

is　only　said　that　it　was　done　in　principle。　　The　support　of　the

Wilmot　Proviso　is　the　first　fact　mentioned　to　prove　that　the

Missouri　restriction　was　repudiated　in　principle；　and　the　second

is　the　refusal　to　extend　the　Missouri　line　over　the　country

acquired　from　Mexico。　　These　are　near　enough　alike　to　be　treated

together。　　The　one　was　to　exclude　the　chances　of　slavery　from　the

whole　new　acquisition　by　the　lump；　and　the　other　was　to　reject　a

division　of　it；　by　which　one　half　was　to　be　given　up　to　those

chances。　　Now；　whether　this　was　a　repudiation　of　the　Missouri

line　in　principle　depends　upon　whether　the　Missouri　law　contained

any　principle　requiring　the　line　to　be　extended　over　the　country

acquired　from　Mexico。　　I　contend　it　did　not。　　I　insist　that　it

contained　no　general　principle；　but　that　it　was；　in　every　sense；

specific。　　That　its　terms　limit　it　to　the　country　purchased　from

France　is　undenied　and　undeniable。　　It　could　have　no　principle

beyond　the　intention　of　those　who　made　it。　　They　did　not　intend

to　extend　the　line　to　country　which　they　did　not　own。　　If　they

intended　to　extend　it　in　the　event　of　acquiring　additional

territory；　why　did　they　not　say　so？　　It　was　just　as　easy　to　say

that　〃in　all　the　country　west　of　the　Mississippi　which　we　now

own；　or　may　hereafter　acquire；　there　shall　never　be　slavery；〃　as

to　say　what　they　did　say；　and　they　would　have　said　it　if　they　had

meant　it。　　An　intention　to　extend　the　law　is　not　only　not

mentioned　in　the　law；　but　is　not　mentioned　in　any　contemporaneous

history。　　Both　the　law　itself；　and　the　history　of　the　times；　are

a　blank　as　to　any　principle　of　extension；　and　by　neither　the

known　rules　of　construing　statutes　and　contracts；　nor　by　common

sense；　can　any　such　principle　be　inferred。



Another　fact　showing　the　specific　character　of　the　Missouri　law

showing　that　it　intended　no　more　than　it　expressed；　showing　that

the　line　was　not　intended　as　a　universal　dividing　line　between

Free　and　Slave　territory；　present　and　prospective；　north　of　which

slavery　could　never　gois　the　fact　that　by　that　very　law

Missouri　came　in　as　a　slave　State；　north　of　the　line。　　If　that

law　contained　any　prospective　principle；　the　whole　law　must　be

looked　to　in　order　to　ascertain　what　the　principle　was。　　And　by

this　rule　the　South　could　fairly　contend　that；　inasmuch　as　they

got　one　slave　State　north　of　the　line　at　the　inception　of　the

law；　they　have　the　right　to　have　another　given　them　north　of　it

occasionally；　now　and　then；　in　the　indefinite　westward　extension

of　the　line。　　This　demonstrates　the　absurdity　of　attempting　to

deduce　a　prospective　principle　from　the　Missouri　Compromise　line。



When　we　voted　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso　we　were　voting　to　keep

slavery　out　of　the　whole　Mexican　acquisition；　and　little　did　we

think　we　were　thereby　voting　to　let　it　into　Nebraska　lying

several　hundred　miles　distant。　　When　we　voted　against　extending

the　Missouri　line；　little　did　we　think　we　were　voting　to　destroy

the　old　line；　then　of　near　thirty　years'　standing。



To　argue　that　we　thus　repudiated　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　no

less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　argue　that　because　we　have　so　far

forborne　to　acquire　Cuba；　we　have　thereby；　in　principle；

repudiated　our　former　acquisitions　and　determined　to　throw　them

out　of　the　Union。　　No　less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　say　that

because　I　may　have　refused　to　build　an　addition　to　my　house；　I

thereby　have　decided　to　destroy　the　existing　house！　And　if　I

catch　you　setting　fire　to　my　house；　you　will　turn　upon　me　and　say

I　instructed　you　to　do　it！



The　most　conclusive　argument；　however；　that　while　for　the　Wilmot

Proviso；　and　while　voting　against　the　extension　of　the　Missouri

line；　we　never　thought　of　disturbing　the　original　Missouri

Compromise；　is　found　in　the　fact　that　there　was　then；　and　still

is；　an　unorganized　tract　of　fine　country；　nearly　as　large　as　the

State　of　Missouri；　lying　immediately　west　of　Arkansas　and　south

of　the　Missouri　Compromise　line；　and　that　we　never　attempted　to

prohibit　slavery　as　to　it。　　I　wish　particular　attention　to　this。

It　adjoins　the　original　Missouri　Compromise　line　by　its　northern

boundary；　and　consequently　is　part　of　the　country　into　which　by

implication　slavery　was　permitted　to　go　by　that　compromise。

There　it　has　lain　open　ever　s；　and　there　it　still　lies；　and　yet

no　effort　has　been　made　at　any　time　to　wrest　it　from　the　South。

In　all　our　struggles　to　prohibit　slavery　within　our　Mexican

acquisitions；　we　never　so　much　as　lifted　a　finger　to　prohibit　it

as　to　this　tract。　　Is　not　this　entirely　conclusive　that　at　all

times　we　have　held　the　Missouri　Compromise　as　a　sacred　thing；

even　when　against　ourselves　as　well　as　when　for　us？



Senator　Douglas　sometimes　says　the　Missouri　line　itself　was　in

principle　only　an　extension　of　the　line　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87

that　is　to　say；　an　extension　of　the　Ohio　River。　　I　think　this　is

weak　enough　on　its　face。　　I　will　remark；　however；　that；　as　a

glance　at　the　map　will　show；　the　Missouri　line　is　a　long　way

farther　south　than　the　Ohio；　and　that　if　our　Senator　in　proposing

his　extension　had　stuck　to　the　principle　of　jogging　southward；

perhaps　it　might　not　have　been　voted　down　so　readily。



But　next　it　is　said　that　the　compromises　of　'50；　and　the

ratification　of　them　by　both　political　parties　in　'52；

established　a　new　principle　which　required　the　repeal　of　the

Missouri　Compromise。　　This　again　I　deny。　　I　deny　it；　and　demand

the　proof。　　I　have　already　stated　fully　what　the　compromises　of

'50　are。　　That　particular　part　of　those　measures　from　which　the

virtual　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　sought　to　be

inferred　（for　it　is　admitted　they　contain　nothing　about　it　in

express　terms）　is　the　provision　in　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws

which　permits　them　when　they　seek　admission　into　the　Union　as

States　to　come　in　with　or　without　slavery；　as　they　shall　then　see

fit。　　Now　I　insist　this　provision　was　made　for　Utah　and　New

Mexico；　and　for　no　other　place　whatever。　　It　had　no　more　direct

reference　to　Nebraska　than　it　had　to　the　territories　of　the　moon。

But；　say　they；　it　had　reference　to　Nebraska　in　principle。　　Let　us

see。　　The　North　consented　to　this　provision；　not　because　they

considered　it　right　in　itself；　but　because　they　were　compensated…

…paid　for　it。



They　at　the　same　time　got　California　into　the　Union　as　a　free

State。　　This　was　far　the　best　part　of　all　they　had　struggled　for

by　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　They　also　got　the　area　of　slavery

somewhat　narrowed　in　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas。

Also　they　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of

Columbia。



For　all　these　desirable　objects　the　North　could　afford　to　yield

something；　and　they　did　yield　to　the　South　the　Utah　and　New

Mexico　provision。　　I　do　not　mean　that　the　whole　North；　or　even　a

majority；　yielded；　when　the　law　passed；　but　enough　yieldedwhen

added　to　the　vote　of　the　South；　to　carry　the　measure。　　Nor　can　it

be　pretended　that　the　principle　of　this　arrangement　requires　us

to　permit　the　same　provision　to　be　applied　to　Nebraska；　without

any　equivalent　at　all。　　Give　us　another　free　State；　press　the

boundary　of　Texas　still　farther　back；　give　us　another　step　toward

the　destruction　of　slavery　in　the　District；　and　you　present　us　a

similar　case。　　But　ask　us　not　to　repeat；　for　nothing；　what　you

paid　for　in　the　first　instance。　　If　you　wish　the　thing　again；　pay

again。　　That　is　the　principle　of　the　compromises　of　'50；　if；

indeed；　they　had　any　principles　beyond　their　specific　termsit

was　the　system　of　equivalents。



Again；　if　Congress；　at　that　time；　intended　that　all　future

Territories　should；　when　admitted　as　States；　come　in　with　or

without　slavery　at　their　own　option；　why　did　it　not　say　so？

With　such　a　universal　provision；　all　know　the　bills　could　not

have　passed。　　Did　they；　thencould　they…establish　a　principle

contrary　to　their　own　intention？　　Still　further；　if　they　intended

to　establish　the　principle　that；　whenever　Congress　had　control；

it　should　be　left　to　the　people　to　do　as　they　thought　fit　with

slavery；　why　did　they　not　authorize　the　people　of　the　District　of

Columbia；　at　their　option；　to　abolish　slavery　within　their

limits？



I　personally　know　that　this　has　not　been　left　undone　because　it

was　unthought　of。　　It　was　frequently　spoken　of　by　members　of

Congress；　and　by　citizens　of　Washington；　six　years　ago；　and　I

heard　no　one　express　a　doubt　that　a　sys