the writings-2- 第36部分

fugitives；　the　slave　is　spoken　of　as　a　〃person　held　to　service　or

labor。〃　In　that　prohibiting　the　abolition　of　the　African　slave

trade　for　twenty　years；　that　trade　is　spoken　of　as　〃the　migration

or　importation　of　such　persons　as　any　of　the　States　now　existing

shall　think　proper　to　admit；〃　etc。　　These　are　the　only　provisions

alluding　to　slavery。　　Thus　the　thing　is　hid　away　in　the

Constitution；　just　as　an　afflicted　man　hides　away　a　wen　or　cancer

which　he　dares　not　cut　out　at　once；　lest　he　bleed　to　death；with

the　promise；　nevertheless；　that　the　cutting　may　begin　at　a

certain　time。　　Less　than　this　our　fathers　could　not　do；　and　more

they　would　not　do。　　Necessity　drove　them　so　far；　and　farther　they

would　not　go。　　But　this　is　not　all。　　The　earliest　Congress　under

the　Constitution　took　the　same　view　of　slavery。　　They　hedged　and

hemmed　it　in　to　the　narrowest　limits　of　necessity。



In　1794　they　prohibited　an　outgoing　slave　tradethat　is；　the

taking　of　slaves　from　the　United　States　to　sell。　　In　1798　they

prohibited　the　bringing　of　slaves　from　Africa　into　the

Mississippi　Territory；　this　Territory　then　comprising　what　are

now　the　States　of　Mississippi　and　Alabama。　　This　was　ten　years

before　they　had　the　authority　to　do　the　same　thing　as　to　the

States　existing　at　the　adoption　of　the　Constitution。　　In　1800

they　prohibited　American　citizens　from　trading　in　slaves　between

foreign　countries；　as；　for　instance；　from　Africa　to　Brazil。　　In

1803　they　passed　a　law　in　aid　of　one　or　two　slave…State　laws　in

restraint　of　the　internal　slave　trade。　　In　1807；　in　apparent　hot

haste；　they　passed　the　law；　nearly　a　year　in　advance；to　take

effect　the　first　day　of　1808；　the　very　first　day　the　Constitution

would　permit；　prohibiting　the　African　slave　trade　by　heavy

pecuniary　and　corporal　penalties。　　In　1820；　finding　these

provisions　ineffectual；　they　declared　the　slave　trade　piracy；　and

annexed　to　it　the　extreme　penalty　of　death。　　While　all　this　was

passing　in　the　General　Government；　five　or　six　of　the　original

slave　States　had　adopted　systems　of　gradual　emancipation；　by

which　the　institution　was　rapidly　becoming　extinct　within　their

limits。　　Thus　we　see　that　the　plain；　unmistakable　spirit　of　that

age　toward　slavery　was　hostility　to　the　principle　and　toleration

only　by　necessity。



But　now　it　is　to　be　transformed　into　a　〃sacred　right。〃　Nebraska

brings　it　forth；　places　it　on　the　highroad　to　extension　and

perpetuity；　and　with　a　pat　on　its　back　says　to　it；　〃Go；　and　God

speed　you。〃　Henceforth　it　is　to　be　the　chief　jewel　of　the　nation

the　very　figure…head　of　the　ship　of　state。　　Little　by　little；　but

steadily　as　man's　march　to　the　grave；　we　have　been　giving　up　the

old　for　the　new　faith。　　Near　eighty　years　ago　we　began　by

declaring　that　all　men　are　created　equal；　but　now　from　that

beginning　we　have　run　down　to　the　other　declaration；　that　for

some　men　to　enslave　others　is　a　〃sacred　right　of　self…

government。〃　These　principles　cannot　stand　together。　　They　are　as

opposite　as　God　and　Mammon；　and　who　ever　holds　to　the　one　must

despise　the　other。　　When　Pettit；　in　connection　with　his　support

of　the　Nebraska　Bill；　called　the　Declaration　of　Independence　〃a

self…evident　lie；〃　he　only　did　what　consistency　and　candor

require　all　other　Nebraska　men　to　do。　　Of　the　forty…odd　Nebraska

senators　who　sat　present　and　heard　him；　no　one　rebuked　him。　　Nor

am　I　apprised　that　any　Nebraska　newspaper；　or　any　Nebraska

orator；　in　the　whole　nation　has　ever　yet　rebuked　him。　　If　this

had　been　said　among　Marion's　men；　Southerners　though　they　were；

what　would　have　become　of　the　man　who　said　it？　　If　this　had　been

said　to　the　men　who　captured　Andre；　the　man　who　said　it　would

probably　have　been　hung　sooner　than　Andre　was。　　If　it　had　been

said　in　old　Independence　Hall　seventy…eight　years　ago；　the　very

doorkeeper　would　have　throttled　the　man　and　thrust　him　into　the

street。　　Let　no　one　be　deceived。　　The　spirit　of　seventy…six　and

the　spirit　of　Nebraska　are　utter　antagonisms；　and　the　former　is

being　rapidly　displaced　by　the　latter。



Fellow…countrymen；　Americans；　South　as　well　as　North；　shall　we

make　no　effort　to　arrest　this？　　Already　the　liberal　party

throughout　the　world　express　the　apprehension　that　〃the　one

retrograde　institution　in　America　is　undermining　the　principles

of　progress；　and　fatally　violating　the　noblest　political　system

the　world　ever　saw。〃　This　is　not　the　taunt　of　enemies；　but　the

warning　of　friends。　　Is　it　quite　safe　to　disregard　itto　despise

it？　　Is　there　no　danger　to　liberty　itself　in　discarding　the

earliest　practice　and　first　precept　of　our　ancient　faith？　　In　our

greedy　chase　to　make　profit　of　the　negro；　let　us　beware　lest　we

〃cancel　and　tear　in　pieces〃　even　the　white　man's　charter　of

freedom。



Our　republican　robe　is　soiled　and　trailed　in　the　dust。　　Let　us

repurify　it。　　Let　us　turn　and　wash　it　white　in　the　spirit；　if　not

the　blood；　of　the　Revolution。　　Let　us　turn　slavery　from　its

claims　of　〃moral　right；；　back　upon　its　existing　legal　rights　and

its　arguments　of　〃necessity。〃　Let　us　return　it　to　the　position

our　fathers　gave　it；　and　there　let　it　rest　in　peace。　　Let　us

readopt　the　Declaration　of　Independence；　and　with　it　the

practices　and　policy　which　harmonize　with　it。　　Let　North　and

South；　let　all　Americanslet　all　lovers　of　liberty　everywhere

join　in　the　great　and　good　work。　　If　we　do　this；　we　shall　not

only　have　saved　the　Union；　but　we　shall　have　so　saved　it　as　to

make　and　to　keep　it　forever　worthy　of　the　saving。　　We　shall　have

so　saved　it　that　the　succeeding　millions　of　free　happy　people　the

world　over　shall　rise　up　and　call　us　blessed　to　the　latest

generations。



At　Springfield；　twelve　days　ago；　where　I　had　spoken　substantially

as　I　have　here；　Judge　Douglas　replied　to　me；　and　as　he　is　to

reply　to　me　here；　I　shall　attempt　to　anticipate　him　by　noticing

some　of　the　points　he　made　there。　　He　commenced　by　stating　I　had

assumed　all　the　way　through　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska

Bill　would　have　the　effect　of　extending　slavery。　　He　denied　that

this　was　intended　or　that　this　effect　would　follow。



I　will　not　reopen　the　argument　upon　this　point。　　That　such　was

the　intention　the　world　believed　at　the　start；　and　will　continue

to　believe。　　This　was　the　countenance　of　the　thing；　and　both

friends　and　enemies　instantly　recognized　it　as　such。　　That

countenance　cannot　now　be　changed　by　argument。　　You　can　as　easily

argue　the　color　out　of　the　negro's　skin。　　Like　the　bloody　hand；〃

you　may　wash　it　and　wash　it；　the　red　witness　of　guilt　still

sticks　and　stares　horribly　at　you。



Next　he　says　that　Congressional　intervention　never　prevented

slavery　anywhere；　that　it　did　not　prevent　it　in　the　Northwestern

Territory；　nor　in　Illinois；　that；　in　fact；　Illinois　came　into　the

Union　as　a　slave　State；　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill

expelled　it　from　Illinois；　from　several　old　States；　from

everywhere。



Now　this　is　mere　quibbling　all　the　way　through。　　If　the　Ordinance

of　'87　did　not　keep　slavery　out　of　the　Northwest　Territory；　how

happens　it　that　the　northwest　shore　of　the　Ohio　River　is　entirely

free　from　it；　while　the　southeast　shore；　less　than　a　mile

distant；　along　nearly　the　whole　length　of　the　river；　is　entirely

covered　with　it？



If　that　ordinance　did　not　keep　it　out　of　Illinois；　what　was　it

that　made　the　difference　between　Illinois　and　Missouri？　　They　lie

side　by　side；　the　Mississippi　River　only　dividing　them；　while

their　early　settlements　were　within　the　same　latitude。　　Between

1810　and　1820　the　number　of　slaves　in　Missouri　increased　7211；

while　in　Illinois　in　the　same　ten　years　they　decreased　51。　　This

appears　by　the　census　returns。　　During　nearly　all　of　that　ten

years　both　were　Territories；　not　States。　　During　this　time　the

ordinance　forbade　slavery　to　go　into　Illinois；　and　nothing

forbade　it　to　go　into　Missouri。　　It　did　go　into　Missouri；　and　did

not　go　into　Illinois。　　That　is　the　fact。　　Can　any　one　doubt　as　to

the　reason　of　it？　　But　he　says　Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a

slave　State。　　Silence；　perhaps；　would　be　the　best　answer　to　this

flat　contradiction　of　the　known　history　of　the　country。　　What　are

the　facts　upon　which　this　bold　assertion　is　based？　　When　we　first

acquired　the　country；　as　far　back　as　1787；　there　were　some　slaves

within　it　held　by　the　French　inhabitants　of　Kaskaskia。　　The

territorial　legislation　admitted　a　few　negroes　from　the　slave

States　as　indentured　servants。　　One　year　after　the　adoption　of

the　first　State　constitution；　the　whole　number　of　them　waswhat

do　you　think？　　Just　one　hundred　and　seventeen；　while　the

aggregate　free　population　was　55；094；about　four　hundred　and

seventy　to　one。　　Upon　this　state　of　facts　the　people　framed　their

constitution　prohibiting　the　further　introduction　of　slavery；

with　a　sort　of　guaranty　to　the　owners　of　the　few　indentured

servants；　giving　freedom　to　their　children　to　be　born　thereafter；

and　making　no　mention　whatever　of　any　supposed　slave　for　life。

Out　of　this　small　matter　the　Judge　manufactures　his　argument　that

Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a　slave　State。　　Let　the　facts　be

the　answer　to　the　argument。



The　principles　of　the　Nebraska　Bill；　he　says；　expelled　slavery

from　Illinois。　　The　principle　of　that　bill　first　planted　it　here…

…that　is；　it　first　came　because　there　was　no　law　to　prevent　it；

first　came　before　we　owned　the　country；　and　finding　it　here；　and

having　the　Ordinance　of　'87　to　prevent　its　increasing；　our　people

struggled　along；　and　finally　got　rid　of　it　as　best　they　could。



But　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　abolished　slavery　in

several　of　the　old　States。　　Well；　it　is　true　that　several　of　the

old　States；　in　the　last　quarter　of　the　last　century；　did　adopt

systems　of　gradual　emancipation　by　which　the　institution　has

finally　become　extinct　within　their　limits；　but　it　may　or　may　not

be　true　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　was　the　cause

that　led　to　t