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！
Democrat； and never yet have I found one who said I did not place him
right in that。 I must assume that Democrats hold that； and now； not
one of these Democrats can show that he said that five years ago！ I
venture to defy the whole party to produce one man that ever uttered
the belief that the Declaration did not apply to negroes； before the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise！ Four or five years ago we all
thought negroes were men； and that when 〃all men〃 were named； negroes
were included。 But the whole Democratic party has deliberately taken
negroes from the class of men and put them in the class of brutes。
Turn it as you will it is simply the truth！ Don't be too hasty； then；
in saying that the people cannot be brought to this new doctrine； but
note that long stride。 One more as long completes the journey from
where negroes are estimated as men to where they are estimated as
mere brutesas rightful property！
That saying 〃In the struggle between white men and the negro；〃 etc。；
which I know came from the same source as this policythat saying
marks another step。 There is a falsehood wrapped up in that
statement。 〃In the struggle between the white man and the negro〃
assumes that there is a struggle； in which either the white man must
enslave the negro or the negro must enslave the white。 There is no
such struggle！ It is merely the ingenious falsehood to degrade and
brutalize the negro。 Let each let the other alone； and there is no
struggle about it。 If it was like two wrecked seamen on a narrow
plank； when each must push the other off or drown himself； I would
push the negro off or a white man either； but it is not； the plank is
large enough for both。 This good earth is plenty broad enough for
white man and negro both； and there is no need of either pushing the
other off。
So that saying； 〃In the struggle between the negro and the
crocodile；〃 etc。； is made up from the idea that down where the
crocodile inhabits； a white man can't labor； it must be nothing else
but crocodile or negro； if the negro does not the crocodile must
possess the earth； in that case he declares for the negro。 The
meaning of the whole is just this： As a white man is to a negro； so
is a negro to a crocodile； and as the negro may rightfully treat the
crocodile； so may the white man rightfully treat the negro。 This
very dear phrase coined by its author； and so dear that he
deliberately repeats it in many speeches； has a tendency to still
further brutalize the negro； and to bring public opinion to the point
of utter indifference whether men so brutalized are enslaved or not。
When that time shall come； if ever； I think that policy to which I
refer may prevail。 But I hope the good freemen of this country will
never allow it to come； and until then the policy can never be
maintained。
Now consider the effect of this policy。 We in the States are not to
care whether freedom or slavery gets the better； but the people in
the Territories may care。 They are to decide； and they may think
what they please； it is a matter of dollars and cents！ But are not
the people of the Territories detailed from the States？ If this
feeling of indifference this absence of moral sense about the
question prevails in the States； will it not be carried into the
Territories？ Will not every man say； 〃I don't care； it is nothing to
me〃？ If any one comes that wants slavery； must they not say； 〃I don't
care whether freedom or slavery be voted up or voted down〃？ It
results at last in nationalizing the institution of slavery。 Even if
fairly carried out； that policy is just as certain to nationalize
slavery as the doctrine of Jeff Davis himself。 These are only two
roads to the same goal； and 〃popular sovereignty〃 is just as sure and
almost as short as the other。
What we want； and all we want； is to have with us the men who think
slavery wrong。 But those who say they hate slavery； and are opposed
to it； but yet act with the Democratic partywhere are they？ Let us
apply a few tests。 You say that you think slavery is wrong； but you
denounce all attempts to restrain it。 Is there anything else that
you think wrong that you are not willing to deal with as wrong？ Why
are you so careful； so tender； of this one wrong and no other？ You
will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong； there is no
place where you will even allow it to be called wrong！ We must not
call it wrong in the free States； because it is not there； and we
must not call it wrong in the slave States； because it is there； we
must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality
into politics； and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because
that is bringing politics into religion； we must not bring it into
the Tract Society or the other societies； because those are such
unsuitable placesand there is no single place； according to you；
where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong！
Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States should
themselves set on foot an effort for emancipation； you would wish
them success； and bid them God…speed。 Let us test that： In 1858 the
emancipation party of Missouri； with Frank Blair at their head； tried
to get up a movement for that purpose； and having started a party
contested the State。 Blair was beaten； apparently if not truly； and
when the news came to Connecticut； you； who knew that Frank Blair was
taking hold of this thing by the right end； and doing the only thing
that you say can properly be done to remove this wrongdid you bow
your heads in sorrow because of that defeat？ Do you； any of you； know
one single Democrat that showed sorrow over that result？ Not one！ On
the contrary every man threw up his hat； and hallooed at the top of
his lungs； 〃Hooray for Democracy！〃
Now； gentlemen； the Republicans desire to place this great question
of slavery on the very basis on which our fathers placed it； and no
other。 It is easy to demonstrate that 〃our fathers； who framed this
Government under which we live；〃 looked on slavery as wrong； and so
framed it and everything about it as to square with the idea that it
was wrong； so far as the necessities arising from its existence
permitted。 In forming the Constitution they found the slave trade
existing； capital invested in it； fields depending upon it for labor；
and the whole system resting upon the importation of slave labor。
They therefore did not prohibit the slave trade at once； but they
gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years。 Why was this？ What
other foreign trade did they treat in that way？ Would they have done
this if they had not thought slavery wrong？
Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed the
Constitution； and afterwards adopted as their own the act by the
first Congress held under that Constitution； of which many of the
framers were members； that prohibited the spread of slavery into
Territories。 Thus the same men； the framers of t