Lincoln says US is a house divided against itself

众议院分歧言论

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm#:~:text=%22A

林肯先生在共和党州代表大会结束时发表讲话。 前一天，国民公会采取了史无前例的举措，任命林肯为参议院候选人（通常参议院候选人在一月份新立法机构召开时选出）。 该演讲针对的是参议员斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯（Stephen A. Douglas）以及任何可能考虑支持道格拉斯的共和党人。 道格拉斯不在场。

资料来源：Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982。亚伯拉罕·林肯百科全书。 纽约：Da Capo Press, Inc.

伊利诺伊州共和党大会，伊利诺伊州斯普林菲尔德，1858 年 6 月 16 日

主席先生和制宪会议的先生们。

如果我们能够首先知道我们在哪里，我们要去哪里，我们就能更好地判断要做什么以及如何做。

自一项政策出台以来，我们已经进入了第五个年头，该政策的公开目标和信心承诺是结束奴隶制煽动。

在这一政策的作用下，这种鼓动不仅没有停止，反而不断加剧。

在我看来，它不会停止，直到危机发生并过去——

“一个内部分裂的房子是站不住脚的。”

我相信这个政府不能永远忍受半奴隶半自由的局面。

我不期望联邦解散——我不期望众议院倒塌——但我确实期望它将停止分裂。

它将变成一件事，或者另一件事。

要么奴隶制的反对者阻止奴隶制的进一步蔓延，并让公众相信奴隶制将最终灭绝； 或者它的拥护者将推动它向前发展，直到它在所有州，无论是旧州还是新州，无论是北方还是南方，都变得同样合法。

难道我们不倾向于后一种情况吗？

让任何怀疑的人仔细思考现在几乎完整的法律组合——可以说是一部机器——由内布拉斯加州原则和德雷德·斯科特决定组成。 让他不仅考虑机器适合做什么工作，以及适应程度如何； 而且，让他研究它的建造历史，如果他能的话，或者更确切地说，如果他不能的话，从一开始就追踪它的主要老板之间的设计和行动协调的证据。

但到目前为止，只有国会采取了行动。 为了挽救已经取得的成果，并为取得更多成果提供机会，人民的支持（无论是真实的还是表面的）是必不可少的。

1854 年新的一年，州宪法将奴隶制排除在一半以上的州之外，并根据国会的禁令，将奴隶制排除在大部分国家领土之外。

四天后，斗争开始，最终废除了国会的禁令。

这使得所有国家领土都进入了奴隶制状态。 这是获得的第一分。

这种必要性并没有被忽视。 但在“擅自占地主权”这一著名论点中已经得到了规定，也可能得到了规定，也称为“自治的神圣权利”，后一个短语虽然表达了任何政府的唯一合法基础，但却被如此歪曲了 在此试图使用它时，就等于：如果任何一个人选择奴役另一个人，则不得允许任何第三人反对。

这一论点被纳入内布拉斯加州法案本身，其措辞如下：“该法案的真正意图和意义不是在任何领土或州立法奴隶制，也不是将其排除在外；而是让其人民完全离开 自由地以自己的方式组建和管理国内机构，仅受美国宪法的约束。”

然后，人们开始大声疾呼，支持“擅自占地者主权”和“神圣的自治权”。

“但是，”反对派成员说，“让我们更具体一些——让我们修改该法案，以便明确宣布领土人民可以排除奴隶制。” “不是我们，”这项措施的朋友们说。 他们对修正案投了否决票。

内布拉斯加州法案正在国会通过时，发生了一起涉及黑人自由问题的法律案件，因为黑人的主人自愿先将他带入自由州，然后又带入国会禁止的领土，并把他视为黑人。 两人都曾长期受奴役，正在美国密苏里地区巡回法院受审； 内布拉斯加州的法案和诉讼都在 1854 年 5 月的同一个月做出了裁决。黑人的名字叫“德雷德·斯科特”，现在这个名字代表了该案最终做出的裁决。

在下届总统选举之前，该案被提交到美国最高法院并进行了辩论； 但其决定被推迟到选举之后。 尽管如此，在选举之前，参议员特朗布尔在参议院要求内布拉斯加州法案的主要倡导者发表他的意见，

一个领土的人民是否可以根据宪法将奴隶制排除在其范围之外； 后者回答说：“这是最高法院的问题。”

选举来了。 布坎南先生当选，并得到了认可。 这是获得的第二分。 然而，这项支持以近四十万票的差距未能获得明显的多数票，因此也许并不是绝对可靠和令人满意的。

即将离任的总统在他最后的年度致辞中，尽可能令人印象深刻地向人民回响了背书的重要性和权威性。

最高法院再次开庭，没有宣布判决，但下令重新辩论。

总统就职典礼到了，法院仍然没有做出决定； 但即将上任的总统在就职演说中热切地劝告人民遵守即将做出的决定，无论它是什么。

然后，几天后，做出了决定。

内布拉斯加州法案的著名作者很早就找到了在国会大厦发表演讲的机会，支持德雷德·斯科特决定，并强烈谴责所有反对该决定的人。

新总统也抓住了西利曼信函的早期契机，赞同并强烈解释了这一决定，并表达了他对从未有过的任何不同观点的惊讶。

最后，总统和内布拉斯加州法案的起草者之间爆发了一场争论，争论的焦点仅仅是事实问题，即莱康普顿宪法在任何公正意义上是否是由堪萨斯人民制定的。 在那场争吵中，后者宣称他想要的只是人民的公平投票，他不在乎奴隶制是否被否决。 我不明白他声明他不在乎奴隶制是否被投票否决，这只是他的意图，而不是作为他要给公众留下深刻印象的政策的恰当定义——他声称他为此遭受了苦难的原则 并准备好忍受到底。

他很可能会坚持这一原则。 如果他有任何父母的感觉，他很可能会坚持下去。 这一原则是他最初的内布拉斯加州学说仅存的碎片。 在德雷德·斯科特案的判决下，“占屋者主权”不复存在，像临时脚手架一样倒塌——就像铸造厂的模具在一次爆炸后又落回松散的沙子中——帮助进行了一次选举，然后被踢到了议会。 风。 他最近与共和党人共同反对莱康普顿宪法，与最初的内布拉斯加州主义毫无关系。 这场斗争的焦点是人民制定自己宪法的权利，在这一点上他和共和党人从未有过分歧。

德雷德·斯科特案的几个要点，与道格拉斯参议员的“不在乎”政策相结合，构成了目前进展状态的机制。

该机械的工作点是：

首先，从美国宪法中使用的术语的意义上来说，从非洲进口的黑人奴隶以及此类奴隶的后裔都不能成为任何州的公民。

提出这一点是为了在任何可能的情况下剥夺黑人从美国宪法条款中获得的利益，该条款声明：

“各州公民应享有各州公民的所有特权和豁免权。”

其次，“根据美国宪法”，国会和领土立法机构都不能将奴隶制排除在任何美国领土之外。

提出这一点是为了让个人可以用奴隶填满这些领土，而不会有失去奴隶作为财产的危险，从而增加该机构在未来永久存在的机会。

第三，在自由州将黑人实际奴役是否会使其获得自由，与持有者相比，美国法院不会做出决定，但将由该黑人可能所在的任何蓄奴州的法院来决定 被主人强行塞进去的。

这一点已经提出，但不要立即强调； 但是，如果默许一段时间，并且在选举中得到人民的明显支持，那么我们就可以维持这样一个合乎逻辑的结论：在伊利诺伊州自由州，德雷德·斯科特的主人可以合法地对德雷德·斯科特做的事情，其他所有主人都可以合法地做 与伊利诺伊州或任何其他自由州的任何其他一名或一千名奴隶一起。

与这一切相辅相成、携手共进的是，内布拉斯加州主义，或者说它的剩余部分，是教育和塑造公众舆论，至少是北方公众舆论，让他们不关心奴隶制是被否决还是被赞成。

这准确地显示了我们现在所处的位置； 部分也是我们所关注的地方。

它将为后者提供更多的线索，让我们回过头来，回顾一下已经陈述过的一系列历史事实。 现在，有些事情将不再像发生时那么黑暗和神秘。 人民将获得“完全自由”“仅受宪法约束”。 宪法与此有何关系，外界无法得知。 现在很明显，这对于德雷德·斯科特后来的决定来说是一个完全合适的契机，并宣布人民的完美自由根本就没有自由。

为什么明确宣布人民有权排除奴隶制的修正案被否决？ 现在很明显，如果采用它，就会破坏德雷德·斯科特决定的有利条件。

法院判决为何被搁置？ 为什么连参议员的个人意见都要等到总统选举之后才发表？ 现在很明显，当时的言论会损害选举所依据的“完全自由”论点。

为什么即将卸任的总统要对这一背书表示祝贺？ 为何迟迟不提出反驳？ 为什么即将上任的总统预先劝告支持这一决定？

这些东西看起来就像是一匹精力旺盛的马在准备上马时小心翼翼地拍拍和抚摸，因为担心它会让骑手摔倒。

为什么在总统和其他人批准决定后仓促行事？

我们不能绝对知道所有这些精确的改编都是音乐会前的结果。 但是当我们看到很多框架木材时，我们知道这些木材是在不同时间和地点由不同工人制成的，例如斯蒂芬、富兰克林、罗杰和詹姆斯，我们看到这些木材连接在一起， 看看他们精确地制作了房屋或磨坊的框架，所有的榫头和榫眼都完全合适，并且不同部件的所有长度和比例都完全适合各自的位置，而不是太多或太少——不是 甚至省略脚手架——或者，如果缺少一个部件，我们看到框架中的位置完全安装并准备好将这样的部件放进去——在这种情况下，我们发现不可能不相信斯蒂芬、富兰克林、罗杰和 詹姆斯从一开始就互相理解，并且在第一次接触之前就制定了一个共同的计划或草案。

不应忽视的是，根据内布拉斯加州法案，州人民和领地人民将享有“完全自由”“仅受宪法约束”。

为什么要提到国家？ 他们是为领土立法，而不是为州或州而立法。 当然，一个州的人民应该而且应该服从美国宪法； 但为什么要在这纯粹的领土法中提到这一点呢？ 为什么一个领土的人民和一个州的人民被混为一谈，并且他们与该州宪法的关系被视为完全相同？

虽然最高法院首席大法官坦尼在德雷德·斯科特案中的意见以及所有同意法官的单独意见明确声明，美国宪法既不允许国会也不允许领土立法机构将奴隶制排除在任何美国联邦之外。 州领土，他们都没有声明同一宪法是否允许一个州或一个州的人民将其排除在外。

或许，这只是一个遗漏； 但谁能完全确定，麦克莱恩或柯蒂斯是否试图让一个州的人民拥有无限权力的宣言，将奴隶制排除在他们的限制之外，就像蔡斯和梅斯代表美国寻求获得这样的宣言一样？ 一个地区的人民，将其纳入内布拉斯加州的法案中——我问，谁能完全确定该法案不会在前一种情况下被否决，就像在另一种情况下一样？

尼尔森法官提出了最接近宣布国家对奴隶制拥有权力的观点。 他不止一次地使用了《内布拉斯加州法案》的精确理念和语言来探讨这个问题。 有一次，他的确切措辞是：“除非权力受到美国宪法的限制，否则州的法律在其管辖范围内的奴隶制问题上具有至高无上的地位。”

在什么情况下，美国宪法对各州的权力进行如此限制，这是一个悬而未决的问题，正如《内布拉斯加州法案》中对领土权力的限制一样。 把这个和那个放在一起，我们就有了另一个漂亮的小缝隙，不久之后我们可能会看到最高法院的另一项裁决，宣布美国宪法不允许一个州将奴隶制排除在其限制之外。

如果“不在乎奴隶制是否被投票否决”这一原则足以引起公众的注意，并承诺在作出这一决定时可以维持这一决定，那么这种情况是可以预期的。

这样的决定是奴隶制现在在所有州都同样合法所缺乏的。

无论受欢迎还是不受欢迎，这样的决定很可能即将到来，而且很快就会降临到我们身上，除非当前政治王朝的力量受到挑战并被推翻。

我们将愉快地躺下，梦想着密苏里州人民即将实现他们的国家自由； 相反，我们将清醒地认识到最高法院已将伊利诺伊州定为蓄奴州的现实。

迎接并推翻那个王朝的权力，是现在摆在所有阻止这一成就的人们面前的工作。

这就是我们必须做的。

但我们怎样才能最好地做到这一点呢？

有些人向自己的朋友公开谴责我们，却轻声地对我们说，道格拉斯参议员是实现这一目标的最合适工具。 他们没有告诉我们，他也没有告诉我们，他希望实现任何这样的目标。 他们希望我们从事实中推断出，他现在与现任王朝的统治者有一点争执； 他经常与我们一起投票，就某一点进行投票，而他和我们在这一点上从未有过分歧。

他们提醒我们，他是一位伟人，而我们中最大的人却是非常渺小的。 让这一点得到承认吧。 但“活着的狗比死了的狮子好”。 道格拉斯法官的这项工作即使不是一头死狮子，也至少是一头关在笼子里、没有牙齿的狮子。 他怎么能反对奴隶制的进步呢？ 他对此什么都不关心。 他公开宣称的使命是让“公众的心”对此漠不关心。

一份主要的道格拉斯民主党报纸认为，道格拉斯的卓越才能是抵制非洲奴隶贸易复兴所必需的。

道格拉斯是否相信重振贸易的努力即将到来？ 他没有这么说。 他真的这么认为吗？ 但如果是的话，他又如何能够抗拒呢？ 多年来，他一直努力证明将黑人奴隶带入新领土是白人的神圣权利。 他能否表明，在最便宜的地方购买它们并不是一项神圣的权利？ 而且，毫无疑问，它们在非洲的售价比在弗吉尼亚更便宜。

他竭尽全力将整个奴隶制问题简化为一项纯粹的财产权问题。 因此，他怎么能反对外国奴隶贸易——他怎么能拒绝“财产”贸易是“完全自由的”——除非他这样做是为了保护国内生产？ 由于国内生产商可能不会要求保护，他将完全没有理由反对。

我们知道，道格拉斯参议员认为，一个人今天可能比昨天更聪明，当他发现自己错了时，他可能会正确地改变。

但是，我们是否可以因此而推断他会做出任何他本人没有暗示过的特定改变？ 我们能否安全地将我们的行动建立在这种模糊的推论之上？

现在，一如既往，我希望不要歪曲道尔加斯法官的立场，质疑他的动机，或者做任何可能冒犯他个人的事情。

无论何时，如果有的话，他和我们能够在原则上走到一起，以便我们的伟大事业能够得到他的伟大能力的帮助，我希望不会造成任何偶然的障碍。

但显然，他现在不在我们身边——他没有假装在——他也没有承诺永远在我们身边。

那么，我们的事业必须委托给我们毫无疑问的朋友，并由他们来领导——他们的双手是自由的，他们的心是在工作上的——他们确实关心结果。

两年前，全国共和党人聚集了超过一百三十万人。

我们这样做是出于抵抗共同危险的单一冲动，尽管外部环境对我们不利。

我们从四风中聚集了奇怪的、不和谐的、甚至是敌对的因素，在纪律严明、骄傲而娇生惯养的敌人的持续猛烈火力下，形成并战斗到底。

当年我们勇敢无畏，现在却步履蹒跚吗？ - 现在 - 当同一个敌人摇摆不定、四分五裂、好战时？

这个结果是没有疑问的。 我们不会失败——如果我们坚定不移，我们就不会失败。

明智的建议可能会加速进程，错误可能会延迟进程，但胜利迟早一定会到来。

资料来源：《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》，罗伊·P·巴斯勒编辑。

House Divided Speech

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm#:~:text=%22A

Mr. Lincoln spoke at the close of the Republican State Convention. On the previous day the Convention had taken the unprecedented move of naming Lincoln their candidate for the Senate [normally Senate candidates were chosen in January when the new legislature convened]. The speech was aimed at Senator Stephen A. Douglas and any Republicans who might think of supporting Douglas. Douglas was not present.

Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.

Illinois Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed -

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination - piece of machinery so to speak- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the State by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition.

This opened all the national territory to slavery; and was the first point gained.

This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.

That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self government."

"But," said opposition members, "let us be more specific- let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through congress, a law case, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.

Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not over-whelmingly reliable and satisfactory.

The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.

The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument.

The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be.

Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it.

The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment than any different view had ever been entertained.

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind - the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.

And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding - like the mold at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand - helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement.

The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.

This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that -

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

Secondly, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory.

This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master.

This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then ro sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.

This shows exactly where we now are; and partially also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsides could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted nitch for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare that perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it, would have spoiled the nitch for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court decision held up? Why, even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision?

These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.

Any why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different potions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen,- Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance-and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortieses exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few-not omitting even scaffolding-or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in-in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of State as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution."

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State to exclude it.

Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill-I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other?

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction."

In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little nitch, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.

Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

That is what we have to do.

But how can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.

They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advance of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it.

A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be brought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade-how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free"-unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today than he was yesterday-that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.

But, can we for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish to not misrepresent Judge Doulgas' position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him.

Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.

But clearly, he is not now with us-he does not pretend to be-he does not promise to ever be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong.

We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us.

Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

Did we brave all then to falter now? - now - when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent?

This result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail.

Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come.

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.