|
亞伯拉罕‧林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
「分裂之家」演說詞
The House Divided Speech
(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)
我認為這個政府不能在半奴隸制半自由的狀態下長存。
亞伯拉罕‧林肯(1809─1865)出生於肯塔基州霍金維爾附近。他自學成才，幹過多種職業──水手、店主、郵政站長、土地測量員和鐵匠，後來學習法律，成為伊利諾伊州一名最成功的律師，以聰明睿智、通情達理和坦誠正直而著稱。他在州立法機關和州議會幹過一些時候，於1858年與斯蒂芬‧A‧道格拉斯競選參議員。1858年6月l 6日。在伊利諾伊州的斯普林菲爾德，林肯接受了共和黨的提名，他發表了一篇旨在分析國家面臨重大問題的演說。林肯引用《新約》，說道：「分裂之家無可持存。」
林肯運用這篇演說指責民主黨態意擴大奴隸制的範圍，並分析了近期發生的三大事件。第一件事是1854年國會通過了《堪薩斯─內伯拉斯加法案》，允許西部新開發的
準州的選民們自行決定是否實行奴隸制。這項法案撤消了禁止在這些準州內實行奴隸制的《密蘇裏妥協案》。林肯提醒他的聽眾說，參議員斯蒂芬‧道格拉斯提出了《內伯拉斯加法案》；林肯還多次提及道格拉斯的話：他「不在乎奴隸制被通過還是被否決」。第二件事是最高法院1857年的德萊德‧斯科特裁決，判定黑人不是(也不能是)美國公民；而國會也無權在自由州或
準州禁止奴隸制，因為這意味著剝奪奴隸主的財產。第三件事是在堪薩斯發生的就《萊康普頓憲法》的合法性問題引起的激烈爭論。這是一部由親奴隸制的居民炮製的州憲法，他們企圖避開公民投票；而最終公民投票以壓倒多數否決了這一憲法。
林肯將這三起事件稱為「一部機器」，由「斯蒂芬、弗蘭克林、羅傑和詹姆斯」營造而成──即參議員道格拉斯、前總統弗蘭克林‧皮爾斯、首席大法官羅傑‧B‧泰尼和詹姆斯‧布坎南總統──皆為民主黨人。
如果我們首先知道我們的位置所在，也清楚我們的邁步所趨，就能更好地判斷該做什麼以及如何去做。自從制定了方針，目標明確、信誓旦旦地決心結束對奴隸制的鼓吹，五個年頭早已過去。這條方針不但沒有結束對奴隸制的鼓吹，而且還使它不斷地得以擴大。照我看來，對奴隸制的鼓吹直到一場危機的降臨和蔓延，才會了結。「分裂之家無可持存。」我認為這個政府不能在半奴隸制半自由的狀態下長存。我不希望這個國家分崩離析──我不希望這個家庭滅頂傾覆，但我確實希望它結束分裂的狀態。它將朝兩
條回迥然相異的方向發展：要不就是奴隸制的反對者遏止其進一步的蔓延，讓公眾之心得以平靜，相信奴隸制將最終走向滅絕；要不就是奴隸制的鼓吹者將其傳播四方，直至奴隸制從北到南，在新舊各州都獲得合法地位。
難道我們沒有朝後一條路發展的跡像嗎?誰要是懷疑，就想想看那個現在幾乎是完整無缺的法律結合體吧──權且稱它為一部機器，它由內伯拉斯加主義和德萊德‧斯科
特裁決組合而成。不僅要考慮一下這部機器是用來幹什麼的和幹得怎麼樣，還要研究一下它的組造歷史，並且──不管有無可能──如果可能的話，從頭尋究一下它的主機部件是如何設計和協調運行起來的。
到1854年新年為止，一半以上的州通過了州憲法禁止奴隸制，而國會也在大多數準州禁止奴隸制。四天以後，人們開始竭盡努力，結果是取消了國會的禁令，由此就在所有
準州對奴隸制予以放行。這樣，他們得了第一分。
但在當時，僅是國會採取了行動，而人民的支援，不論是實在的還是表面上的，卻對保住取得的第一分並伺機進一步得分不可或缺。這種必要性並沒有被忽略：它或多或少地在著名的「人民主權論」的論點──也稱為「自治的神聖權利」──中得以反映。「自治的神聖權利」的論點，雖然表明了任何政府的唯一合法基礎，但卻被曲解到如此地步而僅用來證明如果有人想奴役他人，不容許第三者站出來反對。這個論點被《內伯拉斯加法案》本身所採用。法案這樣寫道：「本法案真實目的和含義為，在任一準州或任一州，既不立法推行也不禁止奴隸制的實行，而應讓那裏的人民在不違反《美國憲法》的前提下以自己的方式完全自由地形成和調整他們當地的組織機構和制度。」
接踵而來的是一片贊同「人民主權論」和「自治的神聖權利」喧鬧的附和聲。
「但是，」反對派們說，「讓我們修正這項法案以明確表明準州的人民可以禁止實行奴隸制吧!」
「咱們不幹。」法案的擁護者們說道，於是否決了修正案。當國會正著手討論《內伯拉斯加法案》時，美國密蘇裏地區巡迴法庭正在審理一樁牽涉一個黑人的自由的案子。他的主人自願地首先把他帶入一個自由州，爾後又帶入一個實行國會禁奴方針的
準州，在兩個地方都呆了許久，主人都將他以奴隸對待。與此同時，即1854年5月，《內伯拉斯加法案》和這樁案子都面臨裁決。那位黑人名叫「德萊德‧斯科特」，法庭對此案的最後裁決就以此命名。
在當時的總統換屆大選前，此樁案子被提交美國最高法院審理，但拖到大選後才作出裁決。然而，在大選前，特朗布林參議員在參議院起身發言，要求《內伯拉斯加法案》的主要發起者闡明他的觀點：
準州的人民是否能不違憲地在其地區內禁行奴隸制?後者答道：「這個問題應由最高法院回答。」
大選來臨，布坎南先生當選，似乎得到了人民的支援。這樣就贏得了第二分。然而，這種支援是在少贏得了近四十萬張選票而形成不了壓倒多數的情況下獲得的，因此，也許算不上是絕對可靠和令人滿意的。卸任總統在他的最後一次年度演說中，盡其可能印象深刻地對大眾提到這種支援所蘊含的份量和權威性。
最高法院再次開庭，沒有宣佈他們的裁決，而是要求再一次辨論。總統就職儀式進行過了，但法庭裁決遲遲未定。然而
新總統在就職演說中敦勸人民不論裁決怎樣都予以支援。隨後幾天內作出了裁決。
這是贏得的第三分。
《內伯拉加法案》聲名昭著的作者早些時候曾在國會大廈發表演說支援德萊德‧斯科特裁決，並強烈譴責對它所有的異議。同樣，新總統也曾在早些時候支援並闡述過此項裁決，還表示說竟有人對此有不同的觀點，令他大為吃驚！最後，新總統和《內伯拉斯加法案》的作者之間挑起了一場爭鬥，僅僅旨在弄清《萊康普頓憲法》在任何正當的意義上是否由堪薩斯人民所制定的。爭吵中，後者聲明他所要求的不過是人民公平的投票，說他並不在乎奴隸制被通過還是被否決。我不認為他所聲明的不在乎奴隸制被通過還是被否決是他本人的意向；這其實是他想施加於公眾之心的這種方針的恰切闡釋而已──他聲明為此如此原則他已吃了許多苦頭，並準備吃苦到底。
他不妨堅持他的原則吧。如果他對此原則尚存父愛之心，那麼還是好好堅持吧。這項原則是他的內伯拉斯加主義僅存的殘簡片段。在德萊德‧斯科特裁決中，」人民主權」土崩瓦解，像臨時搭起的腳手架一般散了身骨──像鑄鐵廠翻砂模具，澆鑄過一次後就複為一盤散沙──它在一次選舉中起了點作用，然後就棄為廢物，隨風而去了。他近來和共和黨人協手合作反對《萊康普頓憲法》，這和他原本的內伯拉斯加主義毫無相干。那次鬥爭的要點是人民制定他們自己憲法的權利，在這方面他與共和黨人的觀點毫無二致。
德萊德‧斯科特裁決的各個要點與道格拉斯參議員的「不在乎」方針，構成了以現狀運行的這部機器。它的工作要點諸如下列：
(1)所有從非洲進口的黑奴以及這些黑奴的後代都不能成為《美國憲法》規定意義上的任何州的公民。
這點是用來盡其可能地剝奪黑人享受《美國憲法》這項條款規定的利益，即「各州公民有權享受各州公民的優惠待遇和豁免權」。
(2)「根據《美國憲法》」，不論是國會還是準州立法機關都不能在美國的任何準州裏禁止奴隸制。
這點是用來使人們可以在任何準州安置奴隸而無失去他們作為財產的危險，以便奴隸制長存
於未來。
(3)在一個自由州使一個黑人實際上處於奴隸地位是否意味著他已脫離奴隸主而獲自由，這點美國法院將不作裁決，而由主人能迫使這個黑人進入的任何一個蓄奴州的法庭來裁決。
這條要點並不求於立即實施，而是在獲得一段時期的默認並在一次選舉中獲得民眾表面支援後，確認其符合邏輯的結論：德萊德‧斯科
特的主人在伊利諾伊自由州合法的所作所為，任何另一奴隸主都能在伊利諾伊或任一其他自由州對所有的奴隸都合法地這樣做。
內伯拉斯加主義，或者說它的殘餘，是附屬於這一切的，與其共同發生效用。它被用來影響和建立輿論──至少是北方的輿論，使民眾對奴隸存在與否的投票結果漠不關心。這恰恰標誌著我們現在的處境，也部分標誌著我們正朝
那條路上往前走。
回顧以往，在心頭想想我已敘述過的歷史事實，對瞭解我們的邁進所趨是有進一步的啟發的。有些事情與它們剛剛發生時相比現在看來已不顯得那麼模糊不清和神秘莫測了。人民的選擇應該「完全自由」，「僅僅受憲法的約束」。而當時不知情的人是看不出憲法與其有什麼相干的。現在很清楚了：它為隨後而至的德萊德‧斯科特裁決提供了一個大小正合適的容身壁龕，並且聲明人民完全的自由意味著根本的不自由。為什麼那條明確表示人民有廢除奴隸制的權利的修正案遭到了否決?現在清楚了：如果通過了它，為德萊德‧斯科特裁決準備的壁龕就垮臺了。為什麼法庭拖延判決?為什麼一個參議員的個人觀點被擱置不顧直至總統選舉之後?現在清楚了：如果當時就回答就會損害選舉賴以依據的「完全自由」的論點。為什麼卸任總統要對人民的支援巧言美語?為什麼延遲法庭的再度辯論?為什麼當選總統要提前對服從裁決提出勸告?這些事情看上去就像騎上一匹烈馬前小心翼翼地拍弄撫摸它一樣，免得它將騎手摔個四腳朝天。為什麼總統和其他人後來又急不可耐地對裁決表示支援呢?
我們無法絕對確認所有這些機巧天衣無縫的配合是預謀的結果。然而，當我們看到這許多木料組成的構架，它們不同的部件在不同的時間和地點由不同的工匠所造出──斯蒂芬、弗蘭克林、羅傑和詹姆斯等等──當我們看到這些木料拼在一起，看到它們天衣無縫地組成了一座房子或一間
工作坊的構架，所有的掉頭和榫眼密切結合，一切構件的長度和大小都使其精確地各歸其位，一塊也不多，一塊也不少，甚至也沒忘了搭置腳手架──或者說如果構件少了一塊的話，構架上也留下了一處空位來補其所缺──在這種情況下，我們覺得不可能不相信斯蒂芬、弗蘭克林、羅傑和詹姆斯從一開頭就心照不宣，共同制定出一個計劃或方案，然後打出第一拳……
在德萊德‧斯科特案件中，首席大法官和所有其他看法一致的法官們都發表意見，明確宣佈《美國憲法》既不容許國會也不容許
準州立法機關在任何美國準州裏禁止奴隸制，但他們都忘記宣佈同一部憲法是否容許一個州或一個州的人民禁行奴隸制。這僅僅是一個疏忽而已，但誰能肯定呢?……將這些拼合在一起，於是又形成一個小巧的壁龕；我們也許不久就會看到另一個最高法院的裁決鑲置其中，宣佈《美國憲法》不容許一個州在其範圍內禁行奴隸制。這種情況尤為可能發生，如果「不在乎奴隸制被通過或被否決」的信條取取得了民心而使他們答應當作出這樣的裁決時可以讓它保持下去。
奴隸制現在正缺乏這樣一個裁決而不能在各州都有合法地位。無論我們歡迎與否，這個裁決可能正處醞釀，不久就會強加於我們，除非我們面對並推翻當前這個政治王朝的勢力。我們可以舒心地躺下夢見密蘇裏州的人民即將使本地變為自由州了，但我們更應對現實保持清醒，因為最高法院已將伊利諾伊變為蓄奴州了。所有欲將阻止事態極端惡化的人們現在要做的就是推翻這個王朝的勢力。這是我們必須做的。我們要怎樣盡力做好它呢?
有些人對他們自己的朋友公開地指責我們，可是卻悄悄對我們說我們要達到目標就應利用道格拉斯參議員這個最順手的工具。他們沒有告訴我們，道格拉斯參議員也沒有告訴過我們，說他希望達到這種目標。他們希望我們全然以這樣的密實作出推斷，即他現在正與當今王朝的頭目鬧小摩擦，而他對某個問題和我們的觀點從未相左，常是站在我們這邊表決的。他們提醒我們說他是一個非常偉大的人物，而我們之中的大多數則微不足道。就算是這樣吧。然而，「一條活著的狗勝過一頭死去的雄獅」。對於這項工作來說，道格拉斯法官即使不是一頭死獅，至少也是一頭身處樊籠、牙根脫落的獅子。他怎麼會反對奴隸制的發展呢?他根本就無所謂。他所信守的使命就是影響「民心」使其對此漠不關心。
因此，我們的事業必須託付於自己的肝膽朋友，由自己的肝膽朋友來完成。他們輕裝上陣，一心工作，他們確實關心事情的結果。兩年前，這個國家的共和黨人已壯大至一百三十多萬人之強大陣容。我們這樣做，懷著一股抵制共同的危險的蓬勃朝氣，面向周圍所有的敵對勢力。在陌生、嘈雜甚至敵意的環境中，我們召集
於四面八方，聯合起來，在組織有序、飛揚拔扈、養尊處優的敵人燃起的不滅的烈焰中，戰鬥到底。當時我們英勇奮鬥，今天卻要畏縮不前嗎？──今天?畏縮於正在動搖、分裂而好戰的從前的敵人面前嗎?結局是無可懷疑的，我們不會失敗──只要我們立場堅定，我們就不會失敗。明智的思想會加速勝利而過失會延遲勝利，但是，或遲或早，勝利終將來臨。
The House Divided Speech
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 can not stand." I believe this Government can not 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 master-workers from the beginning.
The new
year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States 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.
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. 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 there from; 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 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 the 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, requested 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 answered, "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 overwhelmingly 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.
This was
the third point gained.
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 an early occasion to indorse
and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that 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 mould 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's
"care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of
advancement. The working points of that machinery are:
(1) 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
this provision of the United States Constitution which declares that, "The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States."
(2) 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.
(3) 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 it 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, 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 outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now,
it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision afterward to 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 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 re-argument? 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
pre-concert. 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 mortices 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 blow was struck. . . .
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 was a mere omission; but who can be
quite sure . . . 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 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 very 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. .
. .
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? The
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.
|