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！
I said in my speech that Judge Douglas has quoted from； when I
say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist the farther
spread of it； and place it where the public mind shall rest with
the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction； I only
mean to say that they will place it where the founders of this
government originally placed it。
I have said a hundred times； and I have now no inclination to
take it back； that I believe there is no right； and ought to be
no inclination； in the people of the free States to enter into
the slave States and interfere with the question of slavery at
all。 I have said that always； Judge Douglas has heard me say it；
if not quite a hundred times； at least as good as a hundred
times； and when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with
slavery where it exists； I know it is unwarranted by anything I
have ever intended； and； as I believe； by anything I have ever
said。 If； by any means； I have ever used language which could
fairly be so construed （as； however； I believe I never have）； I
now correct it。
So much； then； for the inference that Judge Douglas draws； that I
am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another。 I
know that I never meant any such thing； and I believe that no
fair mind can infer any such thing from anything I have ever
said。
Now； in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general
consolidation of all the local institutions of the various
States。 I will attend to that for a little while； and try to
inquire； if I can； how on earth it could be that any man could
draw such an inference from anything I said。 I have said； very
many times； in Judge Douglas's hearing； that no man believed more
than I in the principle of self…government； that it lies at the
bottom of all my ideas of just government； from beginning to end。
I have denied that his use of that term applies properly。 But
for the thing itself； I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of
me in his devotion to the principle； whatever he may have done in
efficiency in advocating it。 I think that I have said it in your
hearing； that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to
do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor； so far
as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights； that
each community as a State has a right to do exactly as it pleases
with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the
right of no other State； and that the General Government； upon
principle； has no right to interfere with anything other than
that general class of things that does concern the whole。 I have
said that at all times。 I have said； as illustrations； that I do
not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the
cranberry laws of Indiana； the oyster laws of Virginia； or the
liquor laws of Maine。 I have said these things over and over
again； and I repeat them here as my sentiments。
How is it； then； that Judge Douglas infers； because I hope to see
slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that
it is in the course of ultimate extinction； that I am in favor of
Illinois going over and interfering with the cranberry laws of
Indiana？ What can authorize him to draw any such inference？
I suppose there might be one thing that at least enabled him to
draw such an inference that would not be true with me or many
others： that is； because he looks upon all this matter of slavery
as an exceedingly little thing；this matter of keeping one sixth
of the population of the whole nation in a state of oppression
and tyranny unequaled in the world。 He looks upon it as being an
exceedingly little thing；only equal to the question of the
cranberry laws of Indiana； as something having no moral question
in it； as something on a par with the question of whether a man
shall pasture his land with cattle； or plant it with tobacco； so
little and so small a thing that he concludes； if I could desire
that anything should be done to bring about the ultimate
extinction of that little thing； I must be in favor of bringing
about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the
Union。 Now； it so happensand there； I presume； is the
foundation of this mistakethat the Judge thinks thus； and it so
happens that there is a vast portion of the American people that
do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing。
They look upon it as a vast moral evil； they can prove it as such
by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty
which we enjoy； and that they so looked upon it； and not as an
evil merely confining itself to the States where it is situated；
and while we agree that； by the Constitution we assented to； in
the States where it exists； we have no right to interfere with
it； because it is in the Constitution； and we are by both duty
and inclination to stick by that Constitution； in all its letter
and spirit； from beginning to end；
So much； then； as to my dispositionmy wish to have all the
State legislatures blotted out； and to have one consolidated
government； and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the
States； by which I suppose it is meant； if we raise corn here； we
must make sugar…cane grow here too； and we must make those which
grow North grow in the South。 All this I suppose he understands
I am in favor of doing。 Now； so much for all this nonsense； for
I must call it so。 The Judge can have no issue with me on a
question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations
of the States。
A little now on the other point；the Dred Scott decision。
Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me is upon
his devotion to the Dred Scott decision； and my opposition to it。
I have expressed heretofore； and I now repeat； my opposition to
the Dred Scott decision； but I should be allowed to state the
nature of that opposition； and I ask your indulgence while I do
so。 What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used；
〃resistance to the decision〃？ I do not resist it。 If I wanted
to take Dred Scott from his master； I would be interfering with
property； and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks
of； of interfering with property； would arise。 But I am doing no
such thing as that； but all that I am doing is refusing to obey
it as a political rule。 If I were in Congress； and a vote should
come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a
new Territory； in spite of the Dred Scott decision； I would vote
that it should。
That is what I should do。 Judge Douglas said last night that
before the decision he might advance his opinion； and it might be
contrary to the decision when it was made； but after it was made
he would abide by it until it was reversed。 Just so！ We let
this property abide by the decision； but we will try to reverse
that decision。 We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would
not object； for he says he will obey it until it is reversed。
Somebody has to reverse that decision； since it is made； and we
mean to reverse it； and we mean to do it peaceably。
What are the uses of decisions of courts？ They have two uses。
As rules of property they have two uses。 First； they decide upon
the question before the court。 They decide in this case that
Dred Scott is a slave。 Nobody resists that； not only that； but
they say to everybody else that persons standing just as Dred
Scott stands are as he is。 That is； they say that when a
question comes up upon another person； it will be so decided
again； unless the court decides in another way； unless the court
overrules its decision。 Well； we mean to do what we can to have
the court decide the other way。 That is one thing we mean to try
to do。
The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision is
a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around
any other decision。 I have never heard of such a thing。 Why；
dec