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！
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。 LINCOLN： You and I will be on the best terms in the world； but
I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press。
I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty； establishing his sacred
right in the people； if you please； if carried to its logical
conclusion gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States
or the Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy
them cheapest； and if any man can show a distinction； I should like
to hear him try it。 If any man can show how the people of Kansas
have a better right to slaves； because they want them； than the
people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa； I want him to do it。
I think it cannot be done。 If it is 〃popular sovereignty〃 for the
people to have slaves because they want them； it is popular
sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to do
so。
I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort； not seeming to
notice that he had a different theory； has made an effort to get rid
of that。 He has written a letter； addressed to somebody； I believe；
who resides in Iowa； declaring his opposition to the repeal of the
laws that prohibit the Africa slave trade。 He bases his opposition
to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of
the compromises of the Constitution of the United States。 Now； it
would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends
turn； to the Constitution of the United States and point out that
compromise； to show where there is any compromise in the
Constitution； or provision in the Constitution； express or implied；
by which the administrators of that Constitution are under any
obligation to repeal the African slave trade。 I know； or at least I
think I know； that the framers of that Constitution did expect the
African slave trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years； to
which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended。
there is abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of
the Constitution expected it to be abolished。 But while they so
expected； they gave nothing for that expectation； and they put no
provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished。
The migration or importation of such persons as the States shall see
fit to admit shall not be prohibited； but a certain tax might be
levied upon such importation。 But what was to be done after that
time？ The Constitution is as silent about that as it is silent；
personally； about myself。 There is absolutely nothing in it about
that subject； there is only the expectation of the framers of the
Constitution that the slave trade would be abolished at the end of
that time； and they expected it would be abolished； owing to public
sentiment； before that time； and the put that provision in； in order
that it should not be abolished before that time； for reasons which I
suppose they though