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！
Brown； Helper's Book； and the like； break up the Republican
organization？ Human action can be modified to some extent； but human
nature cannot be changed。 There is a judgment and a feeling against
slavery in this nation； which cast at least a million and a half of
votes。 You cannot destroy that judgment and feelingthat sentiment…
…by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it。
You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed
into order in the face of your heaviest fire； but if you could； how
much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of
the peaceful channel of the ballot…box； into some other channel？
What would that other channel probably be？ Would the number of John
Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation？
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of
your constitutional rights。
That has a somewhat reckless sound； but it would be palliated； if not
fully justified； were we proposing； by the mere force of numbers； to
deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution。
But we are proposing no such thing。
When you make these declarations； you have a specific and well…
understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to
take slaves into the Federal Territories； and to hold them there as
property。 But no such right is specifically written in the
Constitution。 That instrument is literally silent about any such
right。 We； on the contrary； deny that such a right has any existence
in the Constitution； even by implication。
Your purpose； then； plainly stated； is that you will destroy the
Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please on all points in dispute between you and
us。 You will rule or ruin； in all events。
This； plainly stated； is your language。 Perhaps you will say the
Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in
your favor。 Not quite so。 But； waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision； the court have decided the question for
you in a sort of way。 The court have substantially said it is your
constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories； and
to hold them there as property。 When I say； the decision was made in
a sort of way； I mean it was made in a divided court； by a bare
majority of the judges； and they not quite agreeing with one another
in the reasons for making it； that it is so made as that its avowed
supporters disagree with one another about its meaning； and that it
was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of factthe statement in
the opinion that 〃the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution。〃
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of
property in a slave is not 〃distinctly and expressly affirmed〃 in it。
Bear in mind； the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that
such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution； but they pledge
their veracity that it is 〃distinctly and expressly〃 affirmed there…
…〃distinctly；〃 that is； not mingled with anything else； 〃expressly；〃
that is； in words meaning just that； without the aid of any
inference； and susceptible of no other meaning。
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication； it would be open to others
to show that neither the word 〃slave〃 nor 〃slavery〃 is to be found in
the Constitution； nor the word 〃property〃 even； in any connection
with language alluding to the things slave or slavery； and that
wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to； he is called a
〃person〃； and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is
alluded to； it is spoken of as 〃service or labor which may be due；〃
as a debt payable in service or labor。 Also； it would be open to
show； by contemporaneous history； that this mode of alluding to
slaves and slavery； instead of speaking of them； was employed on
purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in man。
To show all this； is easy and certain。
When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their
notice； is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement； and reconsider the conclusion based upon it？
And then it is to be remembered that 〃our fathers； who framed the
Government under which we live〃；the men who made the Constitution
decided this same constitutional question in our favor； long ago；
decided it without division among themselves； when making the
decision； without division among themselves about the meaning of it
after it was made； and； so far as any evidence is left； without
basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts。
Under all these circumstances； do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as
yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule
of political action？ But you will not abide the election of a
Republican President！ In that supposed event； you say； you will
destroy the Union；； and then； you say； the great crime of having
destroyed it will be upon us！ That is cool。 A highwayman holds a
pistol to my ear； and mutters through his teeth； 〃stand and deliver；
or I shall kill you； and then you'll be a murderer！〃
To be sure； what the robber demanded of me…my money was my own； and I
had a clear right to keep it； but it was no more my own than my vote
is my own； and the threat of death to me； to extort my money； and the
threat of destruction to the Union； to extort my vote； can scarcely
be distinguished in principle。
A few words now to Republicans： It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one
with another。 Let us Republicans do our part to have it so。 Even
though much provoked； let us do nothing through passion and ill
temper。 Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen
to us； let us calmly consider their demands； and yield to them if； in
our deliberate view of our duty； we possibly can。 Judging by all
they say and do； and by the subject and nature of their controversy
with us； let us determine； if we can； what will satisfy them。
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally
surrendered to them？ We know they will not。 In all their present
complaints against us； the Territories are scarcely mentioned。
Invasions and insurrections are the rage now。 Will it satisfy them
if； in the future； we have nothing to do with invasions and；
insurrections？ We know it will not。 We so know because we know we
never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections； and yet
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the
denunciation。
The question recurs； what will satisfy them？ Simply this： We must
not only let them alone； but we must； somehow； con