the writings-3- 第2部分

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　to　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；　not　to　care

whether　slavery　is　voted　down　or　voted　up。　　This　shows　exactly

where　we　now　are；　and　partially；　also；　wither　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；　outsiders　could　not　then　see。

Plainly　enough　now；it　was　an　exactly　fitted　niche；　for　the　Dred

Scott　decision　to　afterward　come　in；　and　declare　the　perfect

freedom　of　the　people　to　be　just　no　freedom　at　all。　　Why　was　the

amendment；　expressly　declaring　the　right　of　the　people；　voted

down？　Plainly　enough　now；the　adoption　of　it　would　have　spoiled

the　niche　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。　　And　why　the　hasty　after…indorsement　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　portions　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　when　we　see　these

timbers　joined　together；　and　see　they　exactly　make　the　frame　of　a

house　or　a　mill；　all　the　tenons　and　mortises　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　yet　to　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　blow

was　struck。



It　should　not　be　overlooked　that　by　the　Nebraska　Bill　the　people

of　a　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　therefore　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　United

States　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　this　and

that　together；　and　we　have　another　nice　little　niche；　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

especially　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。　　How　can　we　best　do

it？



There　are　those　who　denounce　us　openly　to　their　friends；　and　yet

whisper　to　us　softly　that　Senator　Douglas　is　the　aptest

instrument　there　is　with　which　to　effect　that　object。　　They　wish

us　to　infer　all；　from　the　fact　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　advances　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's　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　bought　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　to…day　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　not

to　misrepresent　Judge　Douglas's　position；　question　his　motives；

or　do　aught　that　can　be　personally　offensive　to　h