the writings-2-第44章

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！



brooding　on　wrong　and　burning　for　revenge。　　One　side　will

provoke；　the　other　resent。　　The　one　will　taunt；　the　other　defy；

one　aggresses；　the　other　retaliates。　　Already　a　few　in　the　North

defy　all　constitutional　restraints；　resist　the　execution　of　the

Fugitive　Slave　law；　and　even　menace　the　institution　of　slavery　in

the　States　where　it　exists。　　Already　a　few　in　the　South　claim　the

constitutional　right　to　take　and　to　hold　slaves　in　the　free

States；　demand　the　revival　of　the　slave　trade；　and　demand　a

treaty　with　Great　Britain　by　which　fugitive　slaves　may　be

reclaimed　from　Canada。　　As　yet　they　are　but　few　on　either　side。

It　is　a　grave　question　for　lovers　of　the　union　whether　the　final

destruction　of　the　Missouri　Compromise；　and　with　it　the　spirit　of

all　compromise；　will　or　will　not　embolden　and　embitter　each　of

these；　and　fatally　increase　the　number　of　both。



But　restore　the　compromise；　and　what　then？　　We　thereby　restore

the　national　faith；　the　national　confidence；　the　national　feeling

of　brotherhood。　　We　thereby　reinstate　the　spirit　of　concession

and　compromise；　that　spirit　which　has　never　failed　us　in　past

perils；　and　which　may　be　safely　trusted　for　all　the　future。　　The

South　ought　to　join　in　doing　this。　　The　peace　of　the　nation　is　as

dear　to　them　as　to　us。　　In　memories　of　the　past　and　hopes　of　the

future；　they　share　as　largely　as　we。　　It　would　be　on　their　part　a

great　actgreat　in　its　spirit；　and　great　in　its　effect。　　It

would　be　worth　to　the　nation　a　hundred　years　purchase　of　peace

and　prosperity。　　And　what　of　sacrifice　would　they　make？　　They

only　surrender　to　us　what　they　gave　us　for　a　consideration　long；

long　ago；　what　they　have　not　now　asked　for；　struggled　or　cared

for；　what　has　been　thrust　upon　them；　not　less　to　their

astonishment　than　to　ours。



But　it　is　said　we　cannot　restore　it；　that　though　we　elect　every

member　of　the　lower　House；　the　Senate　is　still　against　us。　　It　is

quite　true　that　of　the　senators　who　passed　the　Nebraska　Bill　a

majority　of　the　whole　Senate　will　retain　their　seats　in　spite　of

the　elections　of　this　and　the　next　year。　　But　if　at　these

elections　their　several　constituencies　shall　clearly　express

their　will　against　Nebraska；　will　these　senators　disregard　their

will？　　Will　they　neither　obey　nor　make　room　for　those　who　will？



But　even　if　we　fail　to　technically　restore　the　compromise；　it　is

still　a　great　point　to　carry　a　popular　vote　in　favor　of　the

restoration。　　The　moral　weight　of　such　a　vote　cannot　be　estimated

too　highly。　　The　authors　of　Nebraska　are　not　at　all　satisfied

with　the　destruction　of　the　compromisean　indorsement　of　this

principle　they　proclaim　to　be　the　great　object。　　With　them；

Nebraska　alone　is　a　small　matterto　establish　a　principle　for

future　use　is　what　they　particularly　desire。



The　future　use　is　to　be　the　planting　of　slavery　wherever　in　the

wide　world　local　and　unorganized　opposition　cannot　prevent　it。

Now；　if　you　wish　to　give　them　this　indorsement；　if　you　wish　to

establish　this　principle；　do　so。　　I　shall　regret　it；　but　it　is

your　right。　　On　the　contrary；　if　you　are　opposed　to　the

principle；intend　to　give　it　no　such　indorsement；　let　no

wheedling；　no　sophistry；　divert　you　from　throwing　a　direct　vote

against　it。



Some　men；　mostly　Whigs；　who　condemn　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise；　nevertheless　hesitate　to　go　for　its　restoration；　lest

they　be　thrown　in　company　with　the　abolitionists。　　Will　they

allow　me；　as　an　old　Whig；　to　tell　them；　good…humoredly；　that　I

think　this　is　very　silly？　　Stand　with　anybody　that　stands　right。

Stand　with　him　while　he　is　right；　and　part　with　him　when　he　goes

wrong。　　Stand　with　the　abolitionist　in　restoring　the　Missouri

Compromise；　and　stand　against　him　when　he　attempts　to　repeal　the

Fugitive　Slave　law。　　In　the　latter　case　you　stand　with　the

Southern　disunionist。　　What　of　that？　　You　are　still　right。　　In

both　cases　you　are　right。　　In　both　cases　you　oppose　the　dangerous

extremes。　　In　both　you　stand　on　middle　ground；　and　hold　the

ship　level　and　steady。　　In　both　you　are　national；　and　nothing

less　than　national。　　This　is　the　good　old　Whig　ground。　　To　desert

such　ground　because　of　any　company　is　to　be　less　than　a　Whig

less　than　a　manless　than　an　American。



I　particularly　object　to　the　new　position　which　the　avowed

principle　of　this　Nebraska　law　gives　to　slavery　in　the　body

politic。　　I　object　to　it　because　it　assumes　that　there　can　be

moral　right　in　the　enslaving　of　one　man　by　another。　　I　object　to

it　as　a　dangerous　dalliance　for　a　free　peoplea　sad　evidence

that；　feeling　prosperity；　we　forget　right；　that　liberty；　as　a

principle；　we　have　ceased　to　revere。　　I　object　to　it　because　the

fathers　of　the　republic　eschewed　and　rejected　it。　　The　argument

of　〃necessity〃　was　the　only　argument　they　ever　admitted　in　favor

of　slavery；　and　so　far；　and　so　far　only；　as　it　carried　them　did

they　ever　go。　　They　found　the　institution　existing　among　us；

which　they　could　not　help；　and　they　cast　blame　upon　the　British

king　for　having　permitted　its　introduction。



The　royally　appointed　Governor　of　Georgia　in　the　early　1700's　was

threatened　by　the　King　with　removal　if　he　continued　to　oppose

slavery　in　his　colonyat　that　time　the　King　of　England　made　a

small　profit　on　every　slave　imported　to　the　colonies。　　The　later

British　criticism　of　the　United　States　for　not　eradicating

slavery　in　the　early　1800's；　combined　with　their　tacit　support　of

the　'Confederacy'　during　the　Civil　War　is　a　prime　example　of　the

irony　and　hypocracy　of　politics：　that　self…interest　will　ever

overpower　right。



Before　the　Constitution　they　prohibited　its　introduction　into　the

Northwestern　Territory；　the　only　country　we　owned　then　free　from

it。　　At　the　framing　and　adoption　of　the　Constitution；　they

forbore　to　so　much　as　mention　the　word　〃slave〃　or　〃slavery〃　in

the　whole　instrument。　　In　the　provision　for　the　recovery　of

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　e