the writings-4-第13部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



answered　certain　interrogatories　which　Judge　Douglas　had　propounded

to　me；　and　then　in　turn　propounded　some　to　him；　which　he　in　a　sort　of

way　answered。　　The　third　one　of　these　interrogatories　I　have　with　me；

and　wish　now　to　make　some　comments　upon　it。　　It　was　in　these　words：

　〃If　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　shall　decide　that　the

States　cannot　exclude　slavery　from　their　limits；　are　you　in　favor　of

acquiescing　in；　adhering　to；　and　following　such　decision　as　a　rule　of

political　action？〃



To　this　interrogatory　Judge　Douglas　made　no　answer　in　any　just　sense

of　the　word。　　He　contented　himself　with　sneering　at　the　thought　that

it　was　possible　for　the　Supreme　Court　ever　to　make　such　a　decision。

He　sneered　at　me　for　propounding　the　interrogatory。　　I　had　not

propounded　it　without　some　reflection；　and　I　wish　now　to　address　to

this　audience　some　remarks　upon　it。



In　the　second　clause　of　the　sixth　article；　I　believe　it　is；　of　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States；　we　find　the　following　language：



〃This　Constitution　and　the　laws　of　the　United　States　which　shall　be

made　in　pursuance　thereof；　and　all　treaties　made；　or　which　shall　be

made；　under　the　authority　of　the　United　States；　shall　be　the　supreme

law　of　the　land；　and　the　judges　in　every　State　shall　be　bound

thereby；　anything　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　to　the

contrary　notwithstanding。〃



The　essence　of　the　Dred　Scott　case　is　compressed　into　the　sentence

which　I　will　now　read：



〃Now；　as　we　have　already　said　in　an　earlier　part　of　this　opinion；

upon　a　different　point；　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is

distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution。〃



I　repeat　it；　〃The　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and

expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution〃！　　What　is　it　to　be　〃affirmed〃

in　the　Constitution？　　Made　firm　in　the　Constitution；　so　made　that　it

cannot　be　separated　from　the　Constitution　without　breaking　the

Constitution；　durable　as　the　Constitution；　and　part　of　the

Constitution。　　Now；　remembering　the　provision　of　the　Constitution

which　I　have　readaffirming　that　that　instrument　is　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；　that　the　judges　of　every　State　shall　be　bound　by　it；　any

law　or　constitution　of　any　State　to　the　contrary　notwithstanding；

that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　affirmed　in　that

Constitution；　is　made；　formed　into；　and　cannot　be　separated　from　it

without　breaking　it；　durable　as　the　instrument；　part　of　the

instrument；what　follows　as　a　short　and　even　syllogistic　argument

from　it？　　I　think　it　follows；　and　I　submit　to　the　consideration　of

men　capable　of　arguing　whether；　as　I　state　it；　in　syllogistic　form；

the　argument　has　any　fault　in　it：



Nothing　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　can　destroy　a　right

distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States。



The　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed

in　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。



Therefore；　nothing　in　the　Constitution　or　laws　of　any　State　can

destroy　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave。



I　believe　that　no　fault　can　be　pointed　out　in　that　argument；　assuming

the　truth　of　the　premises；　the　conclusion；　so　far　as　I　have　capacity

at　all　to　understand　it；　follows　inevitably。　　There　is　a　fault　in　it

as　I　think；　but　the　fault　is　not　in　the　reasoning；　but　the　falsehood

in　fact　is　a　fault　of　the　premises。　　I　believe　that　the　right　of

property　in　a　slave　is　not　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the

Constitution；　and　Judge　Douglas　thinks　it　is。　　I　believe　that　the

Supreme　Court　and　the　advocates　of　that　decision　may　search　in　vain

for　the　place　in　the　Constitution　where　the　right　of　property　in　a

slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　I　say；　therefore；　that　I

think　one　of　the　premises　is　not　true　in　fact。　　But　it　is　true　with

Judge　Douglas。　　It　is　true　with　the　Supreme　Court　who　pronounced　it。

They　are　estopped　from　denying　it；　and　being　estopped　from　denying

it；　the　conclusion　follows　that；　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States　being　the　supreme　law；　no　constitution　or　law　can　interfere

with　it。　　It　being　affirmed　in　the　decision　that　the　right　of

property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the

Constitution；　the　conclusion　inevitably　follows　that　no　State　law　or

constitution　can　destroy　that　right。　　I　then　say　to　Judge　Douglas　and

to　all　others　that　I　think　it　will　take　a　better　answer　than　a　sneer

to　show　that　those　who　have　said　that　the　right　of　property　in　a

slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution；　are

not　prepared　to　show　that　no　constitution　or　law　can　destroy　that

right。　　I　say　I　believe　it　will　take　a　far　better　argument　than　a

mere　sneer　to　show　to　the　minds　of　intelligent　men　that　whoever　has

so　said　is　not　prepared；　whenever　public　sentiment　is　so　far　advanced

as　to　justify　it；　to　say　the　other。　　This　is　but　an　opinion；　and　the

opinion　of　one　very　humble　man；　but　it　is　my　opinion　that　the　Dred

Scott　decision；　as　it　is；　never　would　have　been　made　in　its　present

form　if　the　party　that　made　it　had　not　been　sustained　previously　by

the　elections。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　the　new　Dred　Scott　decision；

deciding　against　the　right　of　the　people　of　the　States　to　exclude

slavery；　will　never　be　made　if　that　party　is　not　sustained　by　the

elections。　　I　believe；　further；　that　it　is　just　as　sure　to　be　made　as

to…morrow　is　to　come；　if　that　party　shall　be　sustained。　　I　have　said；

upon　a　former　occasion；　and　I　repeat　it　now；　that　the　course　of

arguement　that　Judge　Douglas　makes　use　of　upon　this　subject　（I　charge

not　his　motives　in　this）；　is　preparing　the　public　mind　for　that　new

Dred　Scott　decision。　　I　have　asked　him　again　to　point　out　to　me　the

reasons　for　his　first　adherence　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision　as　it　is。

I　have　turned　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　General　Jackson　differed

with　him　in　regard　to　the　political　obligation　of　a　Supreme　Court

decision。　　I　have　asked　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　Jefferson

differed　with　him　in　regard　to　the　political　obligation　of　a　Supreme

Court　decision。　　Jefferson　said　that　〃Judges　are　as　honest　as　other

men；　and　not　more　so。〃　　And　he　said；　substantially；　that　whenever　a

free　people　should　give　up　in　absolute　submission　to　any　department

of　government；　retaining　for　themselves　no　appeal　from　it；　their

liberties　were　gone。　　I　have　asked　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　the

Cincinnati　platform；　upon　which　he　says　he　stands；　disregards　a

time…honored　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court；　in　denying　the　power　of

Congress　to　establish　a　National　Bank。　　I　have　asked　his　attention　to

the　fact　that　he　himself　was　one　of　the　most　active　instruments　at

one　time　in　breaking　down　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　State　of　Illinois

because　it　had　made　a　decision　distasteful　to　him；a　struggle　ending

in　the　remarkable　circumstance　of　his　sitting　down　as　one　of　the　new

Judges　who　were　to　overslaugh　that　decision；　getting　his　title　of

Judge　in　that　very　way。



So　f