贝壳电子书 > 英文原著电子书 > the writings-5 >

第14章

the writings-5-第14章

小说: the writings-5 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!




legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory; or

to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there;

or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there; the

Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation

unconstitutional; as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the

Dred Scott Supreme Court is。  The first two things they have already

decided; except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between

the words 〃dicta〃 and 〃decision。〃  They have already decided a negro

cannot be made free by Territorial legislation。



What is the Dred Scott decision?  Judge Douglas labors to show that

it is one thing; while I think it is altogether different。  It is a

long opinion; but it is all embodied in this short statement: 〃The

Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man

of his property; without due process of law; the right of property in

slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution:

therefore; if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is

no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory;

that is depriving him of his property without due process of law; and

is unconstitutional。〃  There is the whole Dred Scott decision。  They

add that if Congress cannot do so itself; Congress cannot confer any

power to do so; and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature

to do either of these things is absolutely decided against。  It is a

foregone conclusion by that court。



Now; as to this indirect mode by 〃unfriendly legislation;〃 all

lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot

be tolerated for a moment; because a legislature cannot indirectly do

that which it cannot accomplish directly。  Then I say any legislation

to control this property; as property; for its benefit as property;

would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court; and fully

sustained; but any legislation driving slave property out; or

destroying it as property; directly or indirectly; will most

assuredly; by that court; be held unconstitutional。



Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the

Territories; beyond the power of the people of the Territories to

control it as other property; then it follows logically that every

one who swears to support the Constitution of the United States must

give that support to that property which it needs。  And; if the

Constitution carries slavery into the Territories; beyond the power

of the people; to control it as other property; then it also carries

it into the States; because the Constitution is the supreme law of

the land。  Now; gentlemen; if it were not for my excessive modesty; I

would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year

ago。  This argument is here in print; and if it were not for my

modesty; as I said; I might call your attention to it。  If you read

it; you will find that I not only made that argument; but made it

better than he has made it since。



There is; however; this difference: I say now; and said then; there

is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is

the right of the slave holder to take his slave and hold him in the

Territory; and saying this; judge Douglas himself admits the

conclusion。  He says if that is so; this consequence will follow; and

because this consequence would follow; his argument is; the decision

cannot; therefore; be that way;〃 that would spoil my popular

sovereignty; and it cannot be possible that this great principle has

been squelched out in this extraordinary way。  It might be; if it

were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug。〃



Another feature of the judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is;

an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations

of negatives; that the Constitution does not affirm anything as

expounded by the Dred Scott decision; but it only declares a want of

power a total absence of power; in reference to the Territories。  It

seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result

in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do

anything in relation to this matter in the Territories。  I know the

opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power;

but that is; unfortunately; not all it states: for the judges add

that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly

affirmed in the Constitution。  It does not stop at saying that the

right of property in a slave is recognized in the Constitution; is

declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution; but says it is

affirmed in the Constitution。  Its language is equivalent to saying

that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot be

detached without breaking the Constitution itself。  In a word; it is

part of the Constitution。



Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that

decision to be altogether negative; when the express language at the

vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution。

I think myself; and I repeat it here; that this decision does not

merely carry slavery into the Territories; but by its logical

conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live。  One

provision of that Constitution is; that it shall be the supreme law

of the land;I do not quote the language;any constitution or law

of any State to the contrary notwithstanding。  This Dred Scott

decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in

that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land; any State

constitution or law notwithstanding。  Then I say that to destroy a

thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law

of the land; even by a State constitution or law; is a violation of

that supreme law; and there is no escape from it。  In my judgment

there is no avoiding that result; save that the American people shall

see that constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is

construed in that decision。  They must take care that it is more

faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded。



I must hasten to a conclusion。 Near the beginning of my remarks I

said that this insidious Douglas popular sovereignty is the measure

that now threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent

slavery from being nationalized in the United States。  I propose to

ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in

affirmance of that statement。  Take it just as it stands; and apply

it as a principle; extend and apply that principle elsewhere; and

consider where it will lead you。  I now put this proposition; that

Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty applied will reopen the African

slave trade; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in

which you can turn the subject or look at it。



The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right; by

his principle; to have slaves; if they want them。  Then I say that

the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa; if they

want them; and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction

between the two things;to show that the one is either more wicked

or more unlawful; to show; on original principles; that one is better

or worse than the other; or to show; by the Constitution; that one

differs a whit from the other。  He will tell me; doubtless; that

there is no constitutional provision against people taking slaves

into the new Territories; and I tell him that there is equally no

constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa。  He will

tell you that a people; in the exercise of popular sovereignty; ought

to do as they please about that thing; and have slaves if they want

them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled

to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa; if they want

them; as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want

them。  I ask

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的