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！
proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject
better than we do now； and with that better understanding they acted
better than you are trying to act now。
I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision； as
dealt with by Judge Douglas。 In that 〃memorable debate〃 between
Judge Douglas and myself； last year； the judge thought fit to
commence a process of catechising me； and at Freeport I answered his
questions； and propounded some to him。 Among others propounded to
him was one that I have here now。 The substance； as I remember it；
is； 〃Can the people of a United States Territory； under the Dred
Scott decision； in any lawful way； against the wish of any citizen of
the United States； exclude slavery from its limits； prior to the
formation of a State constitution？〃 He answered that they could
lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories；
notwithstanding the Dred Scot decision。 There was something about
that answer that has probably been a trouble to the judge ever since。
The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United
States a right to carry his slaves into the United States
Territories。 And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the
decision was right； and saying； too； that the people of the Territory
could lawfully drive slavery out again。 When all the trash； the
words； the collateral matter； was cleared away from it； all the chaff
was fanned out of it； it was a bare absurdity；no less than that a
thing may be lawfully driven away from where it has a lawful right to
be。 Clear it of all the verbiage； and that is the naked truth of his
proposition；that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place
where it has a lawful right to stay。 Well； it was because the judge
could n't help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it；
and what I want to ask your especial attention to； just now； is to
remind you； if you have not noticed the fact； that the judge does not
any longer say that the people can exclude slavery。 He does not say
so in the copyright essay； he did not say so in the speech that he
made here； and； so far as I know； since his re…election to the Senate
he has never said； as he did at Freeport； that the people of the
Territories can exclude slavery。 He desires that you； who wish the
Territories to remain free； should believe that he stands by that
position； but he does not say it himself。 He escapes to some extent
the absurd position I have stated； by changing his language entirely。
What he says now is something different in language； and we will
consider whether it is not different in sense too。 It is now that
the Dred Scott decision； or rather the Constitution under that
decision； does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the
power of the people of the Territories to control it as other
property。 He does not say the people can drive it out； but they can
control it as other property。 The language is different； we should
consider whether the sense is different。 Driving a horse out of this
lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about； it is putting
him on the other side of the fence。 Or it might be a sort of
exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the
worms devour him； but neither of these things is the same as
〃controlling him as other property。〃 That would be to feed him； to
pamper him； to ride him； to use and abuse him； to make the most money
out of him； 〃as other property〃； but； please you； what do the men who
are in favor of slavery want more than this？ What do they really
want； other than that slavery； being in the Territories； shall be
controlled as other property？ If they want anything else； I do not
comprehend it。 I ask your attention to this； first； for the purpose
of pointing out the change of ground the judge has made； and； in the
second place； the importance of the change；that that change is not
such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the
power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all。 I know the
judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as
other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to
death； as you might； in the case of a horse； perhaps； feed him so
lightly and ride him so much that he would die。 But when you come to
legislative control； there is something more to be attended to。 I
have no doubt； myself； that if the Territories should undertake to
control slave property as other property that is； control it in such
a way that it would be the most valuable as property； and make it
bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as property； really
deal with it as property；the Supreme Court of the United States
will say； 〃God speed you； and amen。〃 But I undertake to give the
opinion； at least； that if the Territories attempt by any direct
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 purpos