友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
九色书籍 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

the writings-5-第16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!




tell you; men of Ohio; that if you choose here to have laws against

slavery; it is in conformity to the idea that your climate is not

suited to it; that your climate is not suited to slave labor; and

therefore you have constitutions and laws against it。



Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be

sound。  You do not raise sugar…cane (except the new…fashioned

sugar…cane; and you won't raise that long); but they do raise it in

Louisiana。  You don't raise it in Ohio; because you can't raise it

profitably; because the climate don't suit it。  They do raise it in

Louisiana; because there it is profitable。  Now; Douglas will tell

you that is precisely the slavery question: that they do have slaves

there because they are profitable; and you don't have them here

because they are not profitable。  If that is so; then it leads to

dealing with the one precisely as with the other。  Is there; then;

anything in the constitution or laws of Ohio against raising

sugar…cane?  Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in

your law?  Surely not!  No man desires to raise sugar…cane in Ohio;

but if any man did desire to do so; you would say it was a tyrannical

law that forbids his doing so; and whenever you shall agree with

Douglas; whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument; as

surely you will have reached the conclusion that although it is not

profitable in Ohio; if any man wants it; is wrong to him not to let

him have it。



In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of

Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation; about

which you and I differ。



In this connection; let me ask your attention to another thing。  I

believe it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had

expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration

of Independence。  Let me state that again: five years ago no living

man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the

Declaration of Independence。  If there is in this large audience any

man who ever knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as

five years ago; I will be obliged to him now or at a subsequent time

to show it。



If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact: that within

the space of five years Senator Douglas; in the argument of this

question; has got his entire party; so far as I know; without

exception; in saying that the negro has no share in the Declaration

of Independence。  If there be now in all these United States one

Douglas man that does not say this; I have been unable upon any

occasion to scare him up。  Now; if none of you said this five years

ago; and all of you say it now; that is a matter that you Kentuckians

ought to note。  That is a vast change in the Northern public

sentiment upon that question。



Of what tendency is that change?  The tendency of that change is to

bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of;

the negro is not meant; that when negroes are spoken of; brutes alone

are contemplated。  That change in public sentiment has already

degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers

from the condition of a man of some sort; and assigned him to the

condition of a brute。  Now; you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas

credit for this。  That is the largest possible stride that can be

made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery。



A voice:  Speak to Ohio men; and not to Kentuckians!



Mr。 LINCOLN: I beg permission to speak as I please。



In Kentucky perhaps; in many of the slave States certainly; you are

trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the

Bible。  You are trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible

times by divine ordinance。  Now; Douglas is wiser than you; for your

own benefit; upon that subject。  Douglas knows that whenever you

establish that slavery wasright by the Bible; it will occur that

that slavery was the slavery of the white man; of men without

reference to color; and he knows very well that you may entertain

that idea in Kentucky as much as you please; but you will never win

any Northern support upon it。  He makes a wiser argument for you: he

makes the argument that the slavery of the black man; the slavery of

the man who has a skin of a different color from your own; is right。

He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a

moment be brought by your own argument of the Bible right of slavery。

Will you give him credit for that?  Will you not say that in this

matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves?



Now; having established with his entire party this doctrine; having

been entirely successful in that branch of his efforts in your

behalf; he is ready for another。



At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that in all contests

between the negro and the white man he was for the white man; but

that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for

the negro。  He did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis。

He made it a great many times in the canvass in Illinois last year

(though I don't know that it was reported in any of his speeches

there; but he frequently made it)。  I believe he repeated it at

Columbus; and I should not wonder if be repeated it here。  It is;

then; a deliberate way of expressing himself upon that subject。  It

is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to express himself

upon that point of his case。  It therefore requires deliberate

attention。



The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro;

you are wronging the white man in some way or other; and that whoever

is opposed to the negro being enslaved; is; in some way or other;

against the white man。  Is not that a falsehood?  If there was a

necessary conflict between the white man and the negro; I should be

for the white man as much as Judge Douglas; but I say there is no

such necessary conflict。  I say that there is room enough for us all

to be free; and that it not only does not wrong the white man that

the negro should be free; but it positively wrongs the mass of the

white men that the negro should be enslaved; that the mass of white

men are really injured by the effects of slave labor in the vicinity

of the fields of their own labor。



But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more

than to say that this assumption of his is false; and I do hope that

that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white

men。  At all events; you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it; it is

for your benefit it is made。



The other branch of it is; that in the struggle between the negro and

the crocodile; he is for the negro。  Well; I don't know that there is

any struggle between the negro and the crocodile; either。  I suppose

that if a crocodile (or; as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call

them; alligators) should come across a white man; he would kill him

if he could; and so he would a negro。  But what; at last; is this

proposition?  I believe it is a sort of proposition in proportion;

which may be stated thus: 〃As the negro is to the white man; so is

the crocodile to the negro; and as the negro may rightfully treat the

crocodile as a beast or reptile; so the white man may rightfully

treat the negro as a beast or a reptile。〃  That is really the 〃knip〃

of all that argument of his。



Now; my brother Kentuckians; who believe in this; you ought to thank

Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any

of yourselves have done。



Again; Douglas's great principle; 〃popular sovereignty;〃 as he calls

it; gives you; by natural consequence; the revival of the slave trade

whenever you want it。  If you question this; listen awhile; consider

awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition。



He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the

Territories to have slavery if he wants it。  Grant that for

argument's sake。  Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go

there equally to buy slaves in Africa; if he wants them?  Can you

point out the difference?  The man who goes into the Territories of

Kansas and Nebraska; or any other new Territory; with the sacred

right of taking a slave there which belongs to him; would certainly

have no more right to take one there than I would; who own no slave;

but who would desire to buy one and take him there。  You will not say

you; the friends of Judge Douglas but that the man who does not own a

slave has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territory as

the other does。



A voice: I want to ask a question。 Don't foreign nations interfere

with the slave trade?



Mr。 LINCOLN:  Well! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to

whip foreign nations whenever; they interfere with us。



Voice: I only asked for information。  I am a Republican myself。



Mr。 LINC
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 1
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!