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！
as large as the present United States； and its importance； so
long overlooked； begins to come into view。 The restriction of
slavery by the Missouri Compromise directly applies to itin
fact was first made； and has since been maintained expressly for
it。 In 1853； a bill to give it a territorial government passed
the House of Representatives； and； in the hands of Judge Douglas；
failed of passing only for want of time。 This bill contained no
repeal of the Missouri Compromise。 Indeed； when it was assailed
because it did not contain such repeal； Judge Douglas defended it
in its existing form。 On January 4； 1854； Judge Douglas
introduces a new bill to give Nebraska territorial government。
He accompanies this bill with a report； in which last he
expressly recommends that the Missouri Compromise shall neither
be affirmed nor repealed。 Before long the bill is so modified as
to make two territories instead of one； calling the southern one
Kansas。
Also； about a month after the introduction of the bill； on the
Judge's own motion it is so amended as to declare the Missouri
Compromise inoperative and void； and； substantially； that the
people who go and settle there may establish slavery； or exclude
it； as they may see fit。 In this shape the bill passed both
branches of Congress and became a law。
This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise。 The foregoing
history may not be precisely accurate in every particular； but I
am sure it is sufficiently so for all the use I shall attempt to
make of it； and in it we have before us the chief material
enabling us to judge correctly whether the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise is right or wrong。 I think； and shall try to show；
that it is wrongwrong in its direct effect； letting slavery
into Kansas and Nebraska； and wrong in its prospective principle；
allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where
men can be found inclined to take it。
This declared indifference； but； as I must think； covert real
zeal； for the spread of slavery； I cannot but hate。 I hate it
because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself。 I hate it
because it deprives our republican example of its just influence
in the world； enables the enemies of free institutions with
plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites； causes the real friends
of freedom to doubt our sincerity； and especially because it
forces so many good men among ourselves into an open war with the
very fundamental principles of civil liberty； criticizing the
Declaration of Independence； and insisting that there is no right
principle of action but self…interest。
Before proceeding let me say that I think I have no prejudice
against the Southern people。 They are just what we would be in
their situation。 If slavery did not now exist among them； they
would not introduce it。 If it did now exist among us； we should
not instantly give it up。 This I believe of the masses North and
South。 Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would
not hold slaves under any circumstances； and others who would
gladly introduce slavery anew if it were out of existence。 We
know that some Southern men do free their slaves； go North and
become tip…top abolitionists； while some Northern ones go South
and become most cruel slave masters。
When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible
for the origin of slavery than we are； I acknowledge the fact。
When it is said that the institution exists； and that it is very
difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way； I can
understand and appreciate the saying。 I surely will not blame
them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself。 If
all earthly power were given me； I should not know what to do as
to the existing institution。 My first impulse would be to free
all the slaves； and send them to Liberia； to their own native
land。 But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever
of high hope （as I think there is） there may be in this in the
long run； its sudden execution is impossible。 If they were all
landed there in a day； they would all perish in the next ten
days； and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough
to carry them there in many times ten days。 What then？ Free
them all； and keep them among us as underlings？ Is it quite
certain that this betters their condition？ I think I would not
hold one in slavery at any rate； yet the point is not clear
enough for me to denounce people upon。 What next？ Free them；
and make them politically and socially our equals？ My own
feelings will not admit of this； and if mine would； we well know
that those of the great mass of whites will not。 Whether this
feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole
question； if indeed it is any part of it。 A universal feeling；
whether well or ill founded； cannot be safely disregarded。 We
cannot then make them equals。 It does seem to me that systems of
gradual emancipation might be adopted； but for their tardiness in
this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South。
When they remind us of their constitutional rights； I acknowledge
themnot grudgingly； but fully and fairly； and I would give them
any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which
should not in its stringency be more likely to carry a free man
into slavery than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an
innocent one。
But all this； to my judgment； furnishes no more excuse for
permitting slavery to go into our own free territory than it
would for reviving the African slave trade by law。 The law which
forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa； and that which has so
long forbidden the taking of them into Nebraska； can hardy be
distinguished on any moral principle； and the repeal of the
former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the
latter。
The arguments by which the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is
sought to be justified are these：
First。 That the Nebraska country needed a territorial
government。
Second。 That in various ways the public had repudiated that
compromise and demanded the repeal； and therefore should not now
complain of it。
And； lastly； That the repeal establishes a principle which is
intrinsically right。
I will attempt an answer to each of them in its turn。
First； then： If that country was in need of a territorial
organization； could it not have had it as well without as with a
repeal？ Iowa and Minnesota； to both of which the Missouri
restriction applied；
had； without its repeal； each in succession； territorial
organizations。 And even the year before； a bill for Nebraska
itself was within an ace of passing without the repealing clause；
and this in the hands of the same men who are now the champions
of repeal。 Why no necessity then for repeal？ But still later；
when this very bill was first brought in； it contained no repeal。
But； say they； because the people h