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！
everywhere。
Now this is mere quibbling all the way through。 If the Ordinance
of '87 did not keep slavery out of the Northwest Territory； how
happens it that the northwest shore of the Ohio River is entirely
free from it； while the southeast shore； less than a mile
distant； along nearly the whole length of the river； is entirely
covered with it？
If that ordinance did not keep it out of Illinois； what was it
that made the difference between Illinois and Missouri？ They lie
side by side； the Mississippi River only dividing them； while
their early settlements were within the same latitude。 Between
1810 and 1820 the number of slaves in Missouri increased 7211；
while in Illinois in the same ten years they decreased 51。 This
appears by the census returns。 During nearly all of that ten
years both were Territories； not States。 During this time the
ordinance forbade slavery to go into Illinois； and nothing
forbade it to go into Missouri。 It did go into Missouri； and did
not go into Illinois。 That is the fact。 Can any one doubt as to
the reason of it？ But he says Illinois came into the Union as a
slave State。 Silence； perhaps； would be the best answer to this
flat contradiction of the known history of the country。 What are
the facts upon which this bold assertion is based？ When we first
acquired the country； as far back as 1787； there were some slaves
within it held by the French inhabitants of Kaskaskia。 The
territorial legislation admitted a few negroes from the slave
States as indentured servants。 One year after the adoption of
the first State constitution； the whole number of them waswhat
do you think？ Just one hundred and seventeen； while the
aggregate free population was 55；094；about four hundred and
seventy to one。 Upon this state of facts the people framed their
constitution prohibiting the further introduction of slavery；
with a sort of guaranty to the owners of the few indentured
servants； giving freedom to their children to be born thereafter；
and making no mention whatever of any supposed slave for life。
Out of this small matter the Judge manufactures his argument that
Illinois came into the Union as a slave State。 Let the facts be
the answer to the argument。
The principles of the Nebraska Bill； he says； expelled slavery
from Illinois。 The principle of that bill first planted it here…
…that is； it first came because there was no law to prevent it；
first came before we owned the country； and finding it here； and
having the Ordinance of '87 to prevent its increasing； our people
struggled along； and finally got rid of it as best they could。
But the principle of the Nebraska Bill abolished slavery in
several of the old States。 Well； it is true that several of the
old States； in the last quarter of the last century； did adopt
systems of gradual emancipation by which the institution has
finally become extinct within their limits； but it may or may not
be true that the principle of the Nebraska Bill was the cause
that led to the adoption of these measures。 It is now more than
fifty years since the last of these States adopted its system of
emancipation。
If the Nebraska Bill is the real author of the benevolent works；
it is rather deplorable that it has for so long a time ceased
working altogether。 Is there not some reason to suspect that it
was the principle of the Revolution； and not the principle of the
Nebraska Bill； that led to emancipation in these old States？
Leave it to the people of these old emancipating States； and I am
quite certain they will decide that neither that nor any other
good thing ever did or ever will come of the Nebraska Bill。
In the course of my main argument； Judge Douglas interrupted me
to say that the principle of the Nebraska Bill was very old； that
it originated when God made man； and placed good and evil before
him； allowing him to choose for himself； being responsible for
the choice he should make。 At the time I thought this was merely
playful； and I answered it accordingly。 But in his reply to me
he renewed it as a serious argument。 In seriousness； then； the
facts of this proposition are not true as stated。 God did not
place good and evil before man； telling him to make his choice。
On the contrary； he did tell him there was one tree of the fruit
of which he should not eat； upon pain of certain death。 I should
scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in
Nebraska。
But this argument strikes me as not a little remarkable in
another particularin its strong resemblance to the old argument
for the divine right of kings。〃 By the latter； the king is to do
just as he pleases with his white subjects； being responsible to
God alone。 By the former； the white man is to do just as he
pleases with his black slaves； being responsible to God alone。
The two things are precisely alike； and it is but natural that
they should find similar arguments to sustain them。
I had argued that the application of the principle of self…
government； as contended for； would require the revival of the
African slave trade； that no argument could be made in favor of a
man's right to take slaves to Nebraska which could not be equally
well made in favor of his right to bring them from the coast of
Africa。 The Judge replied that the Constitution requires the
suppression of the foreign slave trade； but does not require the
prohibition of slavery in the Territories。 That is a mistake in
point of fact。 The Constitution does not require the action of
Congress in either case； and it does authorize it in both。 And
so there is still no difference between the cases。
In regard to what I have said of the advantage the slave States
have over the free in the matter of representation； the Judge
replied that we in the free States count five free negroes as
five white people； while in the slave States they count five
slaves as three whites only； and that the advantage； at last； was
on the side of the free States。
Now； in the slave States they count free negroes just as we do；
and it so happens that； besides their slaves； they have as many
free negroes as we have； and thirty thousand over。 Thus； their
free negroes more than balance ours； and their advantage over us；
in consequence of their slaves； still remains as I stated it。
In reply to my argument that the compromise measures of 1850 were
a system of equivalents； and that the provisions of no one of
them could fairly be carried to other subjects without its
corresponding equivalent being carried with it； the Judge denied
outright that these measures had any connection with or
dependence upon each other。 This is mere desperation。 If they
had no connection； why are they always spoken of in connection？
Why has he so spoken of them a thousand times？ Why has he
constantly called them a series of measures？ Why does everybody
call them a compromise？ Why was California kept out of the Union