亚伯拉罕．林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)

在库珀学会的演说
The Cooper Union Speech

我们要坚信正义即力量，并且在这个信念指引下，敢于照我们所理解的那样，把我们的责任履行到底。

在1860年争夺共和党总统候选人的提名中，林肯只是个不知名的竞争者。在伊利诺伊州之外，几乎没人知道他这个人。他同道格拉斯的辩论引起人们对他的注意，然后在1859年，他在中西部几个州发表演说，1860年2月27日在纽约市的库珀学会，他对一大群听衆发表演说。这次演说使他打进了前纽约州长、共和党总统候选人提名的主要竞争者威廉．H．苏厄德家乡。紧接着在纽约的胜利之后，林肯又去新英格兰演说，这又使他引起美国东北部那些关键代表的注意。1860年5月在芝加哥举行的共和党全国代表大会上，林肯在第三次投票中获得提名。

六十年后，H．L．门肯还认爲那次在库珀学会的演说使林肯“得到了总统职位”。参议员斯蒂芬．A．道格拉斯(此人不久就成爲民主党提名的总统候选人，在总统大选中是林肯的对手)曾断言创建这个国家的先辈们是故意要保留奴隶制的。林肯在库珀学会的演说中则对他这种说法表示怀疑。在这篇受到广泛注意的演说中就奴隶制这个问题，林肯仔细分析了那些制定宪法的人的意图。其意义超过了对前人意图的研究；一百多年后，法律学者还继续辩论究意那些宪法制定者们是否想结束奴隶制。

……据《纽约时报》报导，去年秋天，参议员道格拉斯先生在俄亥俄州哥伦布所作的一篇演讲中曾说：

“当我们的先辈组建管辖我们的这个政府时，他们跟我们一样理解这个问题，甚至比我们现在理解得更好。”

我完全赞同这种说法，并以此作爲我这篇演讲的一个主题。我之所以这样做是因爲它爲共和党人和民主党中以参议员道格拉斯先生爲首的那一翼之间的讨论提供了一个准确一致的出发点……

谁是我们制定宪法的先辈们呢?我以爲在原始文件上签名的那“三十九”位可以明确地称爲我们组建了现政府的那个部分的先辈……

根据引文说那些先辈们跟我们一样理解这个问题，甚至比我们现在理解得更好。那麽这个问题是什麽呢?

这个问题是这样的：地方权威和联邦权威的适当分开或者宪法中有什麽条文是否能禁止联邦政府在联邦土地上控制奴隶制?

对于这个问题，道格拉斯认爲答案是肯定的，而共和党人认爲是否定的。这种肯定与否定的对立就构成一个问题，这个问题正是那段引文所宣称的我们的先辈比我们更理解的问题。

现在我们不妨问这样一个问题：到底那“三十九”位或他们之中任何一位曾遵照这个问题行事，如果他们真这麽做了，那他们是怎麽做的──他们是怎麽表达出那种更好的理解的。

在1874年，即宪法産生前三年，当时美国只占有西北地区的土地，没有其它的领土，那时美国十三州邦联议会就已经遇到了在那片土地上禁止奴隶制的问题；后来参加制定宪法的那“三十九”位签名人中的四人就是那个议会的成员，并参加了对禁奴问题的投票表决。这四个人中，罗杰．沙曼(Roger Sherman)、托马斯．米夫林 (Thomas Mifflin)、休．威廉森 (Hugh Williamson) 都投票赞成禁止奴隶制，这就表明根据他们的理解，地方权威和联邦权威的分离或任何别的什麽都没有理由禁止联邦政府在联邦领土内控制奴隶制。这四个人中的另一个人詹姆斯．麦克亨利 (James McHenry) 投票反对禁止奴隶制，这表明，由于某种原因，他认爲投票赞成禁止奴隶制是不适当的。

在1787年，仍然是在宪法産生之前，但这时制宪会议正在开会制定宪法，而且这时西北地区的领土仍然是美国占有的唯一领土，就在这个时候，禁止奴隶制的问题又一次提到十三州邦联议会上，后来在宪法上签名的那“三十九”人中又有两人参加了那次邦联议会，而且参加了禁奴问题的投票表决。他们是威廉．布朗特 (William Blount)和威廉．菲尤 (William Few)，两人都投票赞成禁止奴隶制……

在1789年，根据宪法召开的第一次邦联议会通过一个法案实施1787年的法令，其中包括在西北领土上禁止奴隶制，这个法案的议案是由那“三十九”位签名人之一，托马斯．菲茨西蒙斯 (Thomas Fitzsimmons) 向议会报告的，他当时是由宾夕法尼亚来的衆议院议员。议案通过各个阶段没有人说一句反对的话，最后没有投赞成票和反对票就在两院通过，这就等于是全体一致通过。在这次议会中，制定原始宪法的“三十九”位先辈中有十六位参加。他们是：约翰．兰登 (John Langdon)，尼古拉斯．吉尔曼(Nicholas Gilman)，威廉．S．约翰森 (Wm. S. Johnson)，罗杰，舍曼 (Roger Sherman)，罗伯特．莫里斯 (Robert Morris)，托马斯．菲茨西蒙斯 (Thos. Fitzsimmons)，威廉．菲尤 (William Few)，亚伯拉罕．鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)，鲁弗斯．金 (Rufus King)，威廉．帕滕森 (William Patterson)，乔治．克莱默 (George Clymer)，理查德德．巴西特 (Richard Bassett)，乔治．里德 (George Read)，皮尔斯．巴特勒 (Pierce Butler)，丹厄尔．卡罗尔 (Daniel Carrol)，詹姆斯．麦迪逊 (James Madison) ……

还有当时的美国总统乔治．华盛顿也是那“三十九”位签名人之一，他以总统的名义批准了提案并在上面签字，这样就完成了使之作爲法律而生效的程序，而且也表明，根据华盛顿的理解，联邦权威与地方权威的分离或者宪法中的任何规定都无法禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。

原来的宪法通过后不久，北卡罗来纳州就把现在是因纳西州的那块地方割给联邦政府，几年后，乔治亚州也把现在是密西西比州和亚拉巴马州的那片土地割给联邦政府。在这两个割地契约上，割地的州都规定了一个条件，即联邦政府不能在被割的土地上禁止奴隶制。除此之外，当时在被割的土地上实际已存在奴隶制。在这些情况下，国会爲了管理这些地方，并没在这些地方内绝对禁止奴隶制。但是国会实际上是干预了──对奴隶制进行控制──即使在那些地方，也控制到一定程度。1798年，国会组建密西西比 准州。在组织法案中，国会通过罚款和释放带进的奴隶来禁止从美国以外的任何地方将奴隶带进这个准州。这个法案在两院得到一致通过。制定原来宪法的那“三十九”位签名人中有三人在那个议会里。他们是：约翰．兰登 (John Langdon)、乔治．里德 (George Read) 和亚伯拉罕．鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)……

在1803年，联邦政府买下了路易斯安那那片土地。以前我们是从自己的某些州中获取土地的；但这块路易斯安那是向外国买来的。1804年，国会将现在是路易斯安那州的那部分地方进行领土组织。位于那块土地之中的新奥尔良是一个相当大的旧城市，还有其它相当多的城镇与居住地，在这些地方，奴隶制已广泛彻底地与人民混合在一起。国会并没有在领土法案中禁止奴隶制，但国会实际上是干预了──控制了奴隶制──而且比在密西西比做得更明显、更广泛。针对奴隶问题所制定的条款是：

(1)不能从外国进口奴隶到那地方。
(2)不能将1798年5月1日以来进口到美国的奴隶带进那个地方。
(3)除非奴隶主将奴隶带进来并供他自己作爲居留者使用，任何奴隶都不准被带进来。所有违反法律的情况，都将受到罚款处罚，并将奴隶释放。

这个法案也得到一致通过，在通过这个法案的那次议会里有两人在“三十九”位签名人之中。他们是：亚伯拉罕．鲍德温 (Abraham Baldwin)和乔纳森．戴顿 (Jonathan Dayton)……

在18l9年至1820年之间提出了密苏里问题并得到通过。就这个总的问题的各个方面，国会两院通过投赞成票和反对票进行了多次表决。“三十九”位签名人中有两人──鲁弗斯．金 (Rufus King) 和查尔斯．平克尼 (Charles Pinckney) ──是那次议会的成员。金先生坚定地投票赞成废除奴隶制并反对任何妥协，而平克尼先生则投票反对禁止奴隶制而且也反对任何妥协……

我所提到的这些情况仅仅是这“三十九”人或者他们中的任何一个人就这个直接的问题所采取的行动，这就是我所能发现的……

那麽，在此，我们那“三十九”位组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈之中有二十三位，根据他们的公务职责和手按《圣经》所发的誓，就那个问题采取了行动，这个问题正是前面引文所肯定的“他们跟我们一样理解，而且甚至比我们现在理解得更好”的问题。他们当中的二十三人──这显然是“三十九”人中的多数──对这个问题采取了这样的行动，如果根据他们的理解，地方权威与联邦权威的任何适当分离，或者他们亲自制定并发誓支持的宪法中的任何规定，会禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制，那他们就犯有粗鄙的政治错误和故意伪证罪。因此这二十三人采取了行动，行动胜于空谈，而根据这种责任所采取的行动就更胜于空谈了……

那“三十九”位签名人中剩下的十六人，就我所了解的，没有留下任何记录表明他们对联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制这个直接问题的理解。但是有理由相信，如果他们的理解曾得到表明，那麽他们对这个问题的理解也不会表现出与他们那二十三个同伴有什麽不同。

爲了严格信守引文，除了制定原来宪法的那“三十九”先辈之外，我有意略去了任何其它人所表示的理解，不管他们有多麽显赫，而且爲了同样理由，我也略去了这“三十九”人中的任何一位就奴隶制这个总的问题的其它方面所表示的理解。如果我们真的审查一下他就诸如对外奴隶买卖。以及奴隶制的道德和政策等其它方面的问题所采取的行动和发表的声明，那麽在我们看来，就联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制这个直接问题，如果那十六人曾经采取行动的话，他们也许会和那二十三人采取同样的行动。在那十六人有几个人名列当时最著名的反奴隶制人士之中，──如富兰克林博士 (Dr. Franklin)、亚历山大．汉米尔顿 (Alexander Hamilton) 和古维诺尔．莫里斯 (Gouverneur Morris) ──据现在所知其中没有一个人的态度是与此相反的，若有可能，除非是南卡罗来纳的约翰．拉特利奇 (John Rutledge)。

我们那“三十九”位制定了原来宪法的先辈中总共有二十三人──这是明显的多数──肯定认爲联邦权威与地方权威的适当分离，或宪法中的任何条款都不能禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制，而所有其余的人也许是有同样的理解。毫无疑问这就是我们那些制定了原来宪法的先辈们的理解，而且引文也肯定认爲他们对这个问题的理解“比我们更好”。

我们完全可以假定那“三十九”位制定了原来宪法的先辈再加上七十六位制定了修正案的议员，加在一起，肯定包括了那些可以被恰当地称爲“组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈”。基于这种假定，我反对任何人表示他们其中任何一个人，在他的一生中曾宣布根据他的理解，联邦权威与地方权威的适当分离，或者宪法中的任何条款，可禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。我还要进一步反对任何人表示在整个世界任何一个活着的人曾在本世纪初之前(我几乎要说是在本世纪后半叶之前)曾宣布过，根据他的理解，地方权威与联邦权威的适当分离，或者宪法中的任何条款会禁止联邦政府在联邦领土上控制奴隶制。对于那些宣称会禁止的人，我不仅可以拿出“我们那些组建了管辖我们的政府的先辈们”，而且在政府组建的那个世纪内所有其它活着的人也可拿出来与先辈们放在一起让他们去寻找，他们将无法找出任何一个人同意他们看法的证据。

现在，在此，我得略爲防备，以免误解。我不是说我们一定要盲目照搬我们的先辈所做的任何事情，这样做就要摒弃现今经验中所有能帮助我们理解的事实，排斥一切进步和提高。我所真正要说的是，如果我们要在任何情况下取代我们先辈的意见和政策，我们就应当依据确凿的证据、明确的论点，使其权威在经过相当的考虑和掂量之后还能站得住脚，而且肯定不是我们自己宣布他们对这个问题的理解比我们更好，……

现在，如果他们愿意听的话──我想他们是不愿意听的──我想对南方人说几句话。

我要对他们说：你们认爲自己是通情达理和公正的人，而我认爲在讲道理和公正这些普通品质上，你们不比其它任何人差。可是，当你们说起我们共和党人时，你们只会骂我们卑鄙，或者说最好也不比亡命之徒强……

你们说我们是地方主义的。我们否认。这就造成争执，而你们有责任提出证据来。你们提出你们的证据，那是什麽证据呢?喏，我们党在你们的地区是不存在的──在你们的地区得不到选票。这完全是事实，但它能说明问题吗?如果能说明问题的话，那麽，假如我们不改变原则而开始在你们的地区获得选票，我们就不再是地方主义了。这个结论你们不会看不到。可是，你们愿意遵守这个结论吗?如果愿意，也许你们很快就会发现我们不再是地方主义的了，因爲我们今年将在你们的地区获得选票。那时你们就会发现，事实明摆着，你们的证据没有触及问题……

你们有些人喜欢当着我们的面卖弄华盛顿在他的告别演说中提出的对地方主义的警告。在华盛顿提出那个警告不到八年前，他作爲合衆国总统，曾经赞同并签署了一项国会法案，在西北 准州禁止奴隶制，这项法案体现了直到他提出那个警告时和提出警告的那个时刻，政府对这个问题的政策；而在他提出警告大约一年之后，他写信给拉斐叶特，说他认爲在西北 准州禁止奴隶制是个明智的措施，并且表示希望将来能由各自由州组成邦联。

记住这一点，再来看一看自从那时以后在这同一问题上已经出现的地方主义，那麽，华盛顿的警告到底是你们手里反对我们的武器呢，还是我们手里反对你们的武器?要是华盛顿本人还能说话，他究竟会指责我们这些支持他政策的人犯有地方主义呢，还是指责你们这些反对他的政策的人犯有地方主义？……

就算你们能够……破坏共和党的组织，这对你们又有多大益处呢?人的行爲可以在某种程度上改变，可是人的天性却是改变不了的。在这个国家有一种反对奴隶制的意见和感情，至少可以投一百五十万张票。我们的政治组织就是靠这种意见和感情──这种情感而聚集起来的，你们即使把这个组织破坏掉，也摧毁不了这种情感。一支在你们猛烈炮火下建立起来的纪律严明的军队，你们是很难打垮的。但是，即便你们能打垮它，用武力使造就那支军队的情感越出投票箱的和平轨道而进入其它轨道，这对你们又有什麽好处呢?那另一种轨道大概会是什麽呢?像约翰．布朗 (John Browns) 那样的人会因爲这个行动减少还是增加呢?

然而，你们宁可使联邦分裂也不甘心让人剥夺宪法赋予你们的权利。

这听起来有点草率，但是，如果我们提议仅靠人数多的力量来剥夺宪法明文规定给你们的权利，情况就会缓和，即使这种做法不完全正当。但我们不会提出这种建议。

当你们作这些声明时，你们明明是暗示宪法给你们权利把奴隶带进联邦各准州，并把他们留在那里作爲你们的财産。可是宪法里并没有专门规定这种权利。在那个文件里，根本没有提到这种权利。相反地，我们就不认爲宪法里规定了这样一种权利，甚至连言外之意都没有。

那麽，你们的目的，说穿了就是要搞垮政府，除非允许你们在你们和我们之间有争议的各点上随心所欲地解释和强制实施宪法。不管怎样，你们要麽掌权，要麽覆灭。

这说穿了就是你们要对我们说的话。也许你们会说，对于这个有争议的宪法问题，最高法院正作出对你们有利的判决。不见得吧。但是，撇开法学家关于“法官的意见”和“判决”两者之间的区别不谈，最高法院已经多少对这个问题给你们作出了决定。法院实质上是说你们享有宪法规定的权利，把奴隶带进联邦各 准州，并且把他们留在那里作爲你们的财産。

我说多少作出了决定，意思是说决定是在一个分裂爲两派的法院，由法官的微弱多数作出的。他们对于作出决定的理由，看法各不相同。由于这个判决是这样作出的，致使那些自认是这个判决的支持者们对其意义也有不同的看法。而且它主要是依据一个不实之词，即那个意见中所说的：“对奴隶的财産权是宪法专门地和明确地规定的。”

把宪法仔细研究一下，就可以看到它里面对奴隶的财産权并没有作专门的和明确的规定……

如果他们只是用法官的见解说这种权利在文件里是含蓄地获得肯定的，这样别人就会说宪法里既找不到“奴隶”，也找，不到“奴隶制”这个词，甚至与暗指奴隶或奴隶制这类东西有关的“财産”这个词也没有；文件中凡暗指奴隶的地方，都称他爲“人”；凡是指奴隶主对他的合法权利的地方，都称爲“应得的劳役或劳力”──称爲可用劳役或劳力偿付的“债务”。同样也可以用当时的历史来证明，用这种暗指奴隶和奴隶制的方法，而不是明说出来，是有目的的，就是不让宪法里有一种可以把人当财産的想法……

在所有这些情况下，你是不是真以爲自己有理由搞垮这个政府，除非大家马上服从像你们那样的法院判决，把它作爲政治行动的结论性的和最后的准则?但是，你们不能容忍一个共和党入当选爲总统!你们说，如果发生那种情况，你们就要搞垮联邦；你们说，那时，搞垮联邦的严重罪名就会落在我们头上!妙极了。一个拦路强盗用手枪指住我的脑袋，咬牙切齿地说，“留下买路钱，不然我就打死你，那时你将是一个杀人犯！”……

现在再来向共和党人说几句话。让这个伟大联邦所有各部分都太太平平，彼此和睦相处，这是最合乎理想的。我们共和党人应该尽力做到这一点。尽管我们受到很大挑衅，也不要意气用事。即使南方人不愿意听我们的话，我们还是要冷静地考虑他们的要求，如果审慎地考虑到我们的职责，可能的话应当接受他们的要求。我们要根据他们所说和所做的一切，以及他们和我们争端的原因和性质，尽可能决定哪些事情可以使他们满意。

如果使各准州无条件服从他们，他们会满意吗?我们知道他们是不会满意的。在他们目前对我们的一切责难中，几乎没有提到 准州。目前叫得最起劲的是入侵和造反。如果今后证明我们同入侵和造反毫无牵连，他们会满意吗?我们知道他们是不会满意的。我们之所以知道是因爲我们从来没有同入侵和造反有过牵连。可是尽管我们毫无牵连，还是免不了受到攻击和责难。

问题又来了：究竟什麽才能使他们满意呢?……这个，只有这个：不再说奴隶制是错误的。要和他们一起说奴隶制是正确的。而且这必须做得彻底──不但在口头而且在行动上都要做到。他们是不会容忍我们沉默的──我们必须公开宣布和他们站在一起。道格拉斯参议员的新煽动叛乱法必须得到通过和实施，一切有关奴隶制是错误的言论，无论是在政纲里、在报刊上、在讲坛上，或是在私下发表的，都必须禁止。我们必须欢欢喜喜地把他们逃亡的奴隶抓住，送回原主。我们必须取消各自由州的宪法。整个气氛必须肃清一切反对奴隶制的影响，只有这样做以后，他们才不再认爲他们的一切麻烦都是从我们这里来的……

他们既然认爲奴隶制在道德上是正确的，而且在社会上是高尚的，他们就不会停止要求全国把奴隶制当作一种合法权利和社会幸福加以承认。

我们也只有坚信奴隶制是错误的这个立场才能正当地制止这种情况。如果奴隶制是正确的，一切反对奴隶制的言语、行爲、法律和宪法本身就是错误的，必须加以制止和肃清。如果奴隶制是正确的，我们反对它推行到全国推行到全世界，就不合理；如果奴隶制是错误的，他们硬要将之推广──扩大，那就不合理。如果我们认爲奴隶制是正确的，他们的一切要求我们都愿意答应；如果他们认爲奴隶制是错误的，我们的一切要求他们也都愿意答应。他们认爲奴隶制是正确的，我们认爲奴隶制是错误的，这就是整个争端的症结。他们认爲奴隶制是正确的，这就难怪他们希望把奴隶制当作正确的东西予以充分肯定。但是，我们认爲奴隶制是错误的，我们能向他们屈服吗?我们能根据他们的观点来投票反对我们自己的观点吗?鉴 于我们在道德上、社会上和政治上的责任，我们能这样做吗?

虽然我们认爲奴隶制是错误的，但是在实行奴隶制的地方，我们还是可以随它去，因爲那是出于它在国内实际存在的需要。可是，投票可以制止奴隶制时，难道我们能容许它扩展到各 准州，并且到这些自由州来侵扰我们吗?

如果我们的责任感不允许这样，那麽就让我们无畏地和有效地坚持我们的责任吧。决不要被那些一直困扰着我们的精心策划的诡计转移我们的方向，这些诡计多得很，例如在是和非之间找一个中间立场，这就像找一个既不是死人也不是活人的人一样枉费心机；就好像对一个所有正直的人都要关心的问题采取“不在乎”的政策；就像是以联邦的名义呼吁真正拥护联邦的人服从分裂主义者，把神圣的原则颠倒过来，不是叫有罪的人悔改，反而叫正直的人悔改；就像是要召请华盛顿的亡灵，恳求人们收回他所说的话，取消他所做的事。

同样不要让不实的指责使我们偏离我们的责任，也不要被搞垮政府或把我们送入地牢的威胁吓得不敢履行我们的责任。我们要坚信正义即力量，并且在这个信念指引下，敢于像我们所理解的那样，把我们的责任履行到底。

The Cooper Union Speech

In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said:

    "Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

    I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for the discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. ...

    Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. ...

    What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better, than we do now?

    It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

    Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and this issue--this question--is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we.

    Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they expressed that better understanding.

    In 1784, three years before the Constitution, the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government control as to Slavery in federal territory. The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the prohibition, showing that for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it.

    In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine," who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition . . .

    In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine"--Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Ruflis King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carrol, James Madison. . . .

    Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in federal territory.

    No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances. Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it--take control of it--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place without the United States by fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. ...

    In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it--take control of it--in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

    (1) That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.

    (2) That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

    (3) That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

    This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. . . .

    In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles Pinckney--were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. . . .

    The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. ...

    Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the Government under which we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better, than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. . . .

    The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.

    For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times,--as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris,--while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

    The sum of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."...

    It is surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine" framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in the Federal Terrorities. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.

    Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience, to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. . . .

    And now, if they would listen,--as I suppose they will not,--I would address a few words to the Southern people.

   I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws ....

    You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. . . .

    Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should some time have a confederacy of free States.

    Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? . . .

    And how much would it avail you, if you could. . . break up the Republican organization?  Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

    But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights. That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

    When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories and hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

    Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

    This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court has substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property.

    When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”

    An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it….

    If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slaveis alluded to, he is called a “person”; and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due, “as a “debt” payable in service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man….

    Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”….

    A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

    Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

    The question recurs, what will satisfy them? …This, and this only; Cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free-State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us…

    Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing.

    Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong> If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality--its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension--its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

    Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States?

   If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong; vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care; such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the Divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

    Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.