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！
should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of
our government originally placed it upon。 I have no doubt that
it would become extinct； for all time to come； if we but
readopted the policy of the fathers； by restricting it to the
limits it has already covered； restricting it from the new
Territories。
I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the
subject at this time； but allow me to repeat one thing that I
have stated before。 Brooksthe man who assaulted Senator Sumner
on the floor of the Senate； and who was complimented with
dinners； and silver pitchers； and gold…headed canes； and a good
many other things for that featin one of his speeches declared
that when this government was originally established； nobody
expected that the institution of slavery would last until this
day。 That was but the opinion of one man； but it was such an
opinion as we can never get from Judge Douglas or anybody in
favor of slavery； in the North； at all。 You can sometimes get it
from a Southern man。 He said at the same time that the framers
of our government did not have the knowledge that experience has
taught us； that experience and the invention of the cotton…gin
have taught us that the perpetuation of slavery is a necessity。
He insisted； therefore； upon its being changed from the basis
upon which the fathers of the government left it to the basis of
its perpetuation and nationalization。
I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and
myself；that Judge Douglas is helping that change along。 I
insist upon this government being placed where our fathers
originally placed it。
I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on
the statute books of Congress of a policy in the origin of
government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographical line；
that he saw an indisposition to maintain that policy； and
therefore he set about studying up a way to settle the
institution on the right basis；the basis which he thought it
ought to have been placed upon at first； and in that speech he
confesses that he seeks to place it； not upon the basis that the
fathers placed it upon； but upon one gotten up on 〃original
principles。〃 When he asks me why we cannot get along with it in
the attitude where our fathers placed it； he had better clear up
the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis；
that he has himself been chiefly instrumental in changing the
policy of the fathers。 Any one who will read his speech of the
22d of last March will see that he there makes an open
confession； showing that he set about fixing the institution upon
an altogether different set of principles。 I think I have fully
answered him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the
basis where our fathers left it； by showing that he has himself
changed the whole policy of the government in that regard。
Now； fellow…citizens； in regard to this matter about a contract
that was made between Judge Trumbull and myself； and all that
long portion of Judge Douglas's speech on this subject；I wish
simply to say what I have said to him before； that he cannot know
whether it is true or not； and I do know that there is not a word
of truth in it。 And I have told him so before。 I don't want any
harsh language indulged in； but I do not know how to deal with
this persistent insisting on a story that I know to be utterly
without truth。 It used to be a fashion amongst men that when a
charge was made； some sort of proof was brought forward to
establish it； and if no proof was found to exist； the charge was
dropped。 I don't know how to meet this kind of an argument。 I
don't want to have a fight with Judge Douglas； and I have no way
of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn…cob and
stopping his mouth with it。 All I can do isgood…humoredlyto
say that； from the beginning to the end of all that story about a
bargain between Judge Trumbull and myself； there is not a word of
truth in it。 I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of
the truth of his story。 He brings forward here and reads from
what he contends is a speech by James H。 Matheny； charging such
a bargain between Trumbull and myself。 My own opinion is that
Matheny did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he
knew nothing about。 I believe he did。 I contradicted it
instantly； and it has been contradicted by Judge Trumbull； while
nobody has produced any proof； because there is none。 Now；
whether the speech which the Judge brings forward here is really
the one Matheny made； I do not know； and I hope the Judge will
pardon me for doubting the genuineness of this document； since
his production of those Springfield resolutions at Ottawa。 I do
not wish to dwell at any great length upon this matter。 I can
say nothing when a long story like this is told； except it is not
true； and demand that he who insists upon it shall produce some
proof。 That is all any man can do； and I leave it in that way；
for I know of no other way of dealing with it。
＇In an argument on the lines of： 〃Yes； you did。 No； I did
not。〃 It bears on the former to prove his point； not on the
negative to 〃prove〃 that he did noteven if he easily can do
so。＇
The Judge has gone over a long account of the old Whig and
Democratic parties； and it connects itself with this charge
against Trumbull and myself。 He says that they agreed upon a
compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850； that in a
National Democratic Convention resolutions were passed to abide
by that compromise as a finality upon the slavery question。 He
also says that the Whig party in National Convention agreed to
abide by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850。 I
understand the Judge to be altogether right about that； I
understand that part of the history of the country as stated by
him to be correct I recollect that I； as a member of that party；
acquiesced in that compromise。 I recollect in the Presidential
election which followed； when we had General Scott up for the
presidency； Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as
Abolitionists； precisely as he does to…day；not a bit of
difference。 I have often heard him。 We could do nothing when
the old Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism； but it
has got an extremely good name since it has passed away。
＇It almost a natural law that； when deadno matter how bad we
werewe are automatically beatified。＇
When that Compromise was made it did not repeal the old Missouri
Compromise。 It left a region of United States territory half as
large as the present territory of the United States； north of the
line of 36 degrees 30 minutes； in which slavery was prohibited by
Act of Congress。 This Compromise did not repeal that one。 It
did not affect or propose to repeal it。 But at last it became
Judge Douglas's duty； as he thought （and I find no fault with
him）； as Chairman of the Committee on Territories； to bring in a
bill for the organization of a territorial government；first of
one； then of two Territories north of that line。 When he did so；
it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the
Missouri Compromise。 That was because the Compromise of 1850 had
not repealed it。 And now I ask why he could not have let that
Compromise alone？ We were quiet from the agitation of the
slavery question。 We were making no fuss about it。 All had
acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850。 We never had been
seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before that
period。 When he came to form governments for the Territories
north of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes； why could he not have
let that matter stand as it was standing？ Was it necessary to
the organization of a Territory？ Not at all。 Iowa lay north of
the line； and had been organized as a Territory and come into the
Union as a State without disturbing that Compromise。 T