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！
Union as a State without disturbing that Compromise。 There was
no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these
Territories。 But； gentlemen； it would take up all my time to
meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show
that the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Compromise of
1850。 My own opinion is； that a careful investigation of all the
arguments to sustain the position that that Compromise was
virtually repealed by the Compromise of 1850 would show that they
are the merest fallacies。 I have the report that Judge Douglas
first brought into Congress at the time of the introduction of
the Nebraska Bill； which in its original form did not repeal the
Missouri Compromise； and he there expressly stated that he had
forborne to do so because it had not been done by the Compromise
of 1850。 I close this part of the discussion on my part by
asking him the question again； 〃Why； when we had peace under the
Missouri Compromise； could you not have let it alone？〃
In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield； in
which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship
（where； by the way； he is at fault； for if he will examine it； he
will find no acceptance in it）； he again quotes that portion in
which I said that 〃a house divided against itself cannot stand。〃
Let me say a word in regard to that matter。
He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the
different institutions of the States of the Union； that that
variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil； climate；
of the face of the country； and the difference in the natural
features of the States。 I agree to all that。 Have these very
matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us？ Not at all。
Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in
Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the
production of sugar？ Or because we have a different class
relative to the production of flour in this State？ Have they
produced any differences？ Not at all。 They are the very cements
of this Union。 They don't make the house a house divided against
itself。 They are the props that hold up the house and sustain
the Union。
But has it been so with this element of slavery？ Have we not
always had quarrels and difficulties over it？ And when will we
cease to have quarrels over it？ Like causes produce like
effects。 It is worth while to observe that we have generally had
comparative peace upon the slavery question； and that there has
been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to
spread it into new territory。 Whenever it has been limited to
its present bounds； and there has been no effort to spread it；
there has been peace。 All the trouble and convulsion has
proceeded from efforts to spread it over more territory。 It was
thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise。 It was so again
with the annexation of Texas； so with the territory acquired by
the Mexican war； and it is so now。 Whenever there has been an
effort to spread it； there has been agitation and resistance。
Now； I appeal to this audience （very few of whom are my political
friends）； as national men； whether we have reason to expect that
the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the
causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work？
Will not the same cause that produced agitation in 1820； when the
Missouri Compromise was formed； that which produced the agitation
upon the annexation of Texas； and at other times； work out the
same results always？ Do you think that the nature of man will be
changed； that the same causes that produced agitation at one time
will not have the same effect at another？
This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery
question and my reading in history extends。 What right have we
then to hope that the trouble will cease；that the agitation
will come to an end；until it shall either be placed back where
it originally stood； and where the fathers originally placed it；
or； on the other hand； until it shall entirely master all
opposition？ This is the view I entertain； and this is the reason
why I entertained it； as Judge Douglas has read from my
Springfield speech。
Now； my friends； there is one other thing that I feel myself
under some sort of obligation to mention。 Judge Douglas has here
to…dayin a very rambling way； I was about sayingspoken of the
platforms for which he seeks to hold me responsible。 He says；
〃Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles in
all places alike？〃 and he reads from an advertisement that he
says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made by
Judge Trumbull at Waterloo。 In commenting on it he desires to
know whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully； as he and his
friends do。 How； I ask； do his friends speak out their own
sentiments？ A Convention of his party in this State met on the
21st of April at Springfield； and passed a set of resolutions
which they proclaim to the country as their platform。 This does
constitute their platform； and it is because Judge Douglas claims
it is his platformthat these are his principles and purposes
that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments 〃frankly
and manfully。〃 On the 9th of June Colonel John Dougherty；
Governor Reynolds； and others； calling themselves National
Democrats； met in Springfield and adopted a set of resolutions
which are as easily understood； as plain and as definite in
stating to the country and to the world what they believed in and
would stand upon； as Judge Douglas's platform Now； what is the
reason that Judge Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty
and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own written and
printed platform as well as he upon his？ Why must he look
farther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by
his platform？
Again； in reference to our platform： On the 16th of June the
Republicans had their Convention and published their platform；
which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglas's。 In it they
spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world。
What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should
stand upon that platform？ Why must he go around hunting for some
one who is supporting me or has supported me at some time in his
life； and who has said something at some time contrary to that
platform？ Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one？ If it
turn out that the rule is a good one for methat I am
responsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed
who is my friend；then it is a good rule for him。 I ask； is it
not as good a rule for him as it is for me？ In my opinion； it is
not a good rule for either of us。 Do you think differently；
Judge？
＇Mr。 DOUGLAS： I do not。＇
Judge Douglas says he does not think differently。 I am glad of
it。 Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five
or six years ago； and insisting that they were my platform；
notwithstanding my protest that they are not； and never were my
platform； and my pointing out the platform of the State
Convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate？
I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions； if it
is not to hold me responsible for them in some way。 If he says
to me here that he does not hold the rule to be good； one way or
the other； I do not comprehend how he could answer me more fully
if he answered me at greater length。 I will therefore put in as
my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me；
what I； as a lawyer； would call a good plea to a bad declaration。
I understand that it is an axiom of law that a poor plea may be a
good plea to a bad declaration。 I think that the opinions the
Judge brings from those who support me； yet differ from me； is a
bad declaration against me； but if I can bring the same things
against him； I am pu