the writings-3- 第16部分

me；　so　I　went　to　work　to　show　him　that　he　misunderstood　the　whole

scope　of　my　speech；　and　that　I　really　never　intended　to　set　the

people　at　war　with　one　another。　　As　an　illustration；　the　next

time　I　met　him；　which　was　at　Springfield；　I　used　this　expression；

that　I　claimed　no　right　under　the　Constitution；　nor　had　I　any

inclination；　to　enter　into　the　slave　States　and　interfere　with

the　institutions　of　slavery。　　He　says　upon　that：　Lincoln　will　not

enter　into　the　slave　States；　but　will　go　to　the　banks　of　the

Ohio；　on　this　side；　and　shoot　over！　　He　runs　on；　step　by　step；　in

the　horse…chestnut　style　of　argument；　until　in　the　Springfield

speech　he　says：　〃Unless　he　shall　be　successful　in　firing　his

batteries　until　he　shall　have　extinguished　slavery　in　all　the

States　the　Union　shall　be　dissolved。〃　　Now；　I　don't　think　that

was　exactly　the　way　to　treat　〃a　kind；　amiable；　intelligent

gentleman。〃　　I　know　if　I　had　asked　the　Judge　to　show　when　or

where　it　was　I　had　said　that；　if　I　didn't　succeed　in　firing　into

the　slave　States　until　slavery　should　be　extinguished；　the　Union

should　be　dissolved；　he　could　not　have　shown　it。　　I　understand

what　he　would　do。　　He　would　say：　I　don't　mean　to　quote　from　you；

but　this　was　the　result　of　what　you　say。　　But　I　have　the　right　to

ask；　and　I　do　ask　now；　Did　you　not　put　it　in　such　a　form　that　an

ordinary　reader　or　listener　would　take　it　as　an　expression　from

me？



In　a　speech　at　Springfield；　on　the　night　of　the　17th；　I　thought　I

might　as　well　attend　to　my　own　business　a　little；　and　I　recalled

his　attention　as　well　as　I　could　to　this　charge　of　conspiracy　to

nationalize　slavery。　　I　called　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　he

had　acknowledged　in　my　hearing　twice　that　he　had　carefully　read

the　speech；　and；　in　the　language　of　the　lawyers；　as　he　had　twice

read　the　speech；　and　still　had　put　in　no　plea　or　answer；　I　took　a

default　on　him。　　I　insisted　that　I　had　a　right　then　to　renew　that

charge　of　conspiracy。　　Ten　days　afterward　I　met　the　Judge　at

Clinton；that　is　to　say；　I　was　on　the　ground；　but　not　in　the

discussion；and　heard　him　make　a　speech。　　Then　he　comes　in　with

his　plea　to　this　charge；　for　the　first　time；　and　his　plea　when

put　in；　as　well　as　I　can　recollect　it；　amounted　to　this：　that　he

never　had　any　talk　with　Judge　Taney　or　the　President　of　the

United　States　with　regard　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision　before　it

was　made。　　I　（Lincoln）　ought　to　know　that　the　man　who　makes　a

charge　without　knowing　it　to　be　true　falsifies　as　much　as　he　who

knowingly　tells　a　falsehood；　and；　lastly；　that　he　would　pronounce

the　whole　thing　a　falsehood；　but；　he　would　make　no　personal

application　of　the　charge　of　falsehood；　not　because　of　any　regard

for　the　〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman；〃　but　because　of

his　own　personal　self…respect！　　I　have　understood　since　then　（but

＇turning　to　Judge　Douglas＇　will　not　hold　the　Judge　to　it　if　he　is

not　willing）　that　he　has　broken　through　the　〃self…respect；〃　and

has　got　to　saying　the　thing　out。　　The　Judge　nods　to　me　that　it　is

so。　　It　is　fortunate　for　me　that　I　can　keep　as　good…humored　as　I

do；　when　the　Judge　acknowledges　that　he　has　been　trying　to　make　a

question　of　veracity　with　me。　　I　know　the　Judge　is　a　great　man；

while　I　am　only　a　small　man；　but　I　feel　that　I　have　got　him。　　I

demur　to　that　plea。　　I　waive　all　objections　that　it　was　not　filed

till　after　default　was　taken；　and　demur　to　it　upon　the　merits。

What　if　Judge　Douglas　never　did　talk　with　Chief　Justice　Taney　and

the　President　before　the　Dred　Scott　decision　was　made；　does　it

follow　that　he　could　not　have　had　as　perfect　an　understanding

without　talking　as　with　it？　　I　am　not　disposed　to　stand　upon　my

legal　advantage。　　I　am　disposed　to　take　his　denial　as　being　like

an　answer　in　chancery；　that　he　neither　had　any　knowledge；

information；　or　belief　in　the　existence　of　such　a　conspiracy。　　I

am　disposed　to　take　his　answer　as　being　as　broad　as　though　he　had

put　it　in　these　words。　　And　now；　I　ask；　even　if　he　had　done　so；

have　not　I　a　right　to　prove　it　on　him；　and　to　offer　the　evidence

of　more　than　two　witnesses；　by　whom　to　prove　it；　and　if　the

evidence　proves　the　existence　of　the　conspiracy；　does　his　broader

answer　denying　all　knowledge；　information；　or　belief；　disturb　the

fact？　　It　can　only　show　that　he　was　used　by　conspirators；　and　was

not　a　leader　of　them。



Now；　in　regard　to　his　reminding　me　of　the　moral　rule　that　persons

who　tell　what　they　do　not　know　to　be　true　falsify　as　much　as

those　who　knowingly　tell　falsehoods。　　I　remember　the　rule；　and　it

must　be　borne　in　mind　that　in　what　I　have　read　to　you；　I　do　not

say　that　I　know　such　a　conspiracy　to　exist。　　To　that　I　reply；　I

believe　it。　　If　the　Judge　says　that　I　do　not　believe　it；　then　he

says　what　he　does　not　know；　and　falls　within　his　own　rule；　that

he　who　asserts　a　thing　which　he　does　not　know　to　be　true；

falsifies　as　much　as　he　who　knowingly　tells　a　falsehood。　　I　want

to　call　your　attention　to　a　little　discussion　on　that　branch　of

the　case；　and　the　evidence　which　brought　my　mind　to　the

conclusion　which　I　expressed　as　my　belief。　　If；　in　arraying　that

evidence　I　had　stated　anything　which　was　false　or　erroneous；　it

needed　but　that　Judge　Douglas　should　point　it　out；　and　I　would

have　taken　it　back；　with　all　the　kindness　in　the　world。　　I　do　not

deal　in　that　way。　　If　I　have　brought　forward　anything　not　a　fact；

if　he　will　point　it　out；　it　will　not　even　ruffle　me　to　take　it

back。　　But　if　he　will　not　point　out　anything　erroneous　in　the

evidence；　is　it　not　rather　for　him　to　show；　by　a　comparison　of

the　evidence；　that　I　have　reasoned　falsely；　than　to　call　the

〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman〃　a　liar？　　If　I　have

reasoned　to　a　false　conclusion；　it　is　the　vocation　of　an　able

debater　to　show　by　argument　that　I　have　wandered　to　an　erroneous

conclusion。　　I　want　to　ask　your　attention　to　a　portion　of　the

Nebraska　Bill；　which　Judge　Douglas　has　quoted：



　〃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。〃



Thereupon　Judge　Douglas　and　others　began　to　argue　in　favor　of

〃popular　sovereignty；〃　the　right　of　the　people　to　have　slaves　if

they　wanted　them；　and　to　exclude　slavery　if　they　did　not　want

them。　　〃But；〃　said；　in　substance；　a　Senator　from　Ohio　（Mr。　Chase；

I　believe）；



〃we　more　than　suspect　that　you　do　not　mean　to　allow　the　people　to

exclude　slavery　if　they　wish　to；　and　if　you　do　mean　it；　accept　an

amendment　which　I　propose；　expressly　authorizing　the　people　to

exclude　slavery。〃



I　believe　I　have　the　amendment　here　before　me；　which　was　offered；

and　under　which　the　people　of　the　Territory；　through　their

representatives；　might；　if　they　saw　fit；　prohibit　the　existence

of　slavery　therein。　　And　now　I　state　it　as　a　fact；　to　be　taken

back　if　there　is　any　mistake　about　it；　that　Judge　Douglas　and

those　acting　with　him　voted　that　amendment　down。　　I　now　think

that　those　men　who　voted　it　down　had　a　real　reason　for　doing　so。

They　know　what　that　reason　was。　　It　looks　to　us；　since　we　have

seen　the　Dred　Scott　decision　pronounced；　holding　that　〃under　the

Constitution〃　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery；　I　say　it　looks

to　outsiders；　poor；　simple；　〃amiable；　intelligent　gentlemen；〃　as

though　the　niche　was　left　as　a　place　to　put　that　Dred　Scott

decision　in；a　niche　which　would　have　been　spoiled　by　adopting

the　amendment。　　And　now；　I　say　again；　if　this　was　not　the　reason；

it　will　avail　the　Judge　much　more　to　calmly　and　good…humoredly

point　out　to　these　people　what　that　other　reason　was　for　voting

the　amendment　down；　than；　swelling　himself　up；　to　vociferate　that

he　may　be　provoked　to　call　somebody　a　liar。



Again：　There　is　in　that　same　quotation　from　the　Nebraska　Bill

this　clause：　〃It　being　the　true　intent　and　meaning　of　this　bill

not　to　legislate　slavery　into　any　Territory　or　State。〃　　　I　have

always　been　puzzled　to　know　what　business　the　word　〃State〃　had　in

that　connection。　　Judge　Douglas　knows。　　He　put　it　there。　　He

knows　what　he　put　it　there　for。　　We　outsiders　cannot　say　what　he

put　it　there　for。　　The　law　they　were　passing　was　not　about

States；　and　was　not　making　provisions　for　States。　　What　was　it

placed　there　for？　　After　seeing　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　which

holds　that　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery　from　a　Territory；　if

another　Dred　Scott　decision　shall　come；　holding　that　they　cannot

exclude　it　from　a　State；　we　shall　discover　that　when　the　word　was

originally　put　there；　it　was　in　view　of　something　which　was　to

come　in　due　time；　we　shall　see　that　it　was　the　other　half　of

something。　　I　now　say　again；　if　there　is　any　different　reason　for

putting　it　there；　Judge　Douglas；　in　a　good…humored　way；　without

calling　anybody　a　liar；　can　tell　what　the　reason　was。



When