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！
constantly called them a series of measures？ Why does everybody
call them a compromise？ Why was California kept out of the Union
six or seven months； if it was not because of its connection with
the other measures？ Webster's leading definition of the verb 〃to
compromise〃 is 〃to adjust and settle a difference； by mutual
agreement； with concessions of claims by the parties。〃 This
conveys precisely the popular understanding of the word
〃compromise。
We knew； before the Judge told us； that these measures passed
separately； and in distinct bills； and that no two of them were
passed by the votes of precisely the same members。 But we also
know； and so does he know； that no one of them could have passed
both branches of Congress but for the understanding that the
others were to pass also。 Upon this understanding； each got
votes which it could have got in no other way。 It is this fact
which gives to the measures their true character； and it is the
universal knowledge of this fact that has given them the name of
〃compromises；〃 so expressive of that true character。
I had asked： 〃If； in carrying the Utah and New Mexico laws to
Nebraska； you could clear away other objection； how could you
leave Nebraska 'perfectly free' to introduce slavery before she
forms a constitution； during her territorial government； while
the Utah and New Mexico laws only authorize it when they form
constitutions and are admitted into the Union？〃 To this Judge
Douglas answered that the Utah and New Mexico laws also
authorized it before； and to prove this he read from one of their
laws； as follows： 〃That the legislative power of said Territory
shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation； consistent
with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of
this act。〃
Now it is perceived from the reading of this that there is
nothing express upon the subject； but that the authority is
sought to be implied merely for the general provision of 〃all
rightful subjects of legislation。〃 In reply to this I insist； as
a legal rule of construction； as well as the plain； popular view
of the matter； that the express provision for Utah and New Mexico
coming in with slavery； if they choose； when they shall form
constitutions； is an exclusion of all implied authority on the
same subject； that Congress having the subject distinctly in
their minds when they made the express provision； they therein
expressed their whole meaning on that subject。
The Judge rather insinuated that I had found it convenient to
forget the Washington territorial law passed in 1853。 This was a
division of Oregon； organizing the northern part as the Territory
of Washington。 He asserted that by this act the Ordinance of
'87； theretofore existing in Oregon； was repealed； that nearly
all the members of Congress voted for it； beginning in the House
of Representatives with Charles Allen of Massachusetts； and
ending with Richard Yates of Illinois； and that he could not
understand how those who now opposed the Nebraska Bill so voted
there； unless it was because it was then too soon after both the
great political parties had ratified the compromises of 1850； and
the ratification therefore was too fresh to be then repudiated。
Now I had seen the Washington act before； and I have carefully
examined it since； and I aver that there is no repeal of the
Ordinance of '87； or of any prohibition of slavery； in it。 In
express terms； there is absolutely nothing in the whole law upon
the subjectin fact； nothing to lead a reader to think of the
subject。 To my judgment it is equally free from everything from
which repeal can be legally implied； but； however this may be；
are men now to be entrapped by a legal implication； extracted
from covert language； introduced perhaps for the very purpose of
entrapping them？ I sincerely wish every man could read this law
quite through； carefully watching every sentence and every line
for a repeal of the Ordinance of '87； or anything equivalent to
it。
Another point on the Washington act： If it was intended to be
modeled after the Utah and New Mexico acts； as Judge Douglas
insists； why was it not inserted in it； as in them； that
Washington was to come in with or without slavery as she may
choose at the adoption of her constitution？ It has no such
provision in it； and I defy the ingenuity of man to give a reason
for the omission； other than that it was not intended to follow
the Utah and New Mexico laws in regard to the question of
slavery。
The Washington act not only differs vitally from the Utah and New
Mexico acts； but the Nebraska act differs vitally from both。 By
the latter act the people are left 〃perfectly free〃 to regulate
their own domestic concerns； etc。； but in all the former； all
their laws are to be submitted to Congress； and if disapproved
are to be null。 The Washington act goes even further； it
absolutely prohibits the territorial Legislature； by very strong
and guarded language； from establishing banks or borrowing money
on the faith of the Territory。 Is this the sacred right of self…
government we hear vaunted so much？ No； sir； the Nebraska Bill
finds no model in the acts of '50 or the Washington act。 It
finds no model in any law from Adam till to…day。 As Phillips
says of Napoleon； the Nebraska act is grand； gloomy and peculiar；
wrapped in the solitude of its own originality； without a model
and without a shadow upon the earth。
In the course of his reply Senator Douglas remarked in substance
that he had always considered this government was made for the
white people and not for the negroes。 Why； in point of mere
fact； I think so too。 But in this remark of the Judge there is a
significance which I think is the key to the great mistake （if
there is any such mistake） which he has made in this Nebraska
measure。 It shows that the Judge has no very vivid impression
that the negro is human； and consequently has no idea that there
can be any moral question in legislating about him。 In his view
the question of whether a new country shall be slave or free is a
matter of as utter indifference as it is whether his neighbor
shall plant his farm with tobacco or stock it with horned cattle。
Now； whether this view is right or wrong； it is very certain that
the great mass of mankind take a totally different view。 They
consider slavery a great moral wrong； and their feeling against
it is not evanescent； but eternal。 It lies at the very
foundation of their sense of justice； and it cannot be trifled
with。 It is a great and durable element of popular action； and I
think no statesman can safely disregard it。
Our Senator also objects that those who oppose him in this matter
do not entirely agree with one another。 He reminds me that in my
firm adherence to the constitutional rights of the slave States I
differ widely from others who are cooperating with me in opposing
the Nebraska Bill； and he says