林肯 ─ 道格拉斯辯論
The Lincoln－Douglas Debates

1860 選舉卡通顯示林肯與道格拉斯的比賽

斯蒂芬‧A‧道格拉斯：這個國家是建立在這樣的基礎上的，即每個州都有權根據自己的意願決定奴隸制的存亡。

亞伯拉罕‧林肯：這場爭論的真正問題在於……一派的觀點將奴隸制度視為邪惡，而另一派的觀點不把它視為邪惡。

1858年，林肯從伊利諾伊州和斯蒂芬‧道格拉斯參議員競選美國參議院席位。他向道格拉斯挑戰，在整個州的範圍內展開了一系列的辯論。道格拉斯是民主黨全國性的風雲人物，而林肯出了本州則默默無聞。成千上萬人──農民、工人、職員等等──前來觀戰、提問、向自己的一方喝彩。辯論僅集中於一個問題：奴隸制。

道格拉斯(1813－1861)生於佛蒙特州，二十歲時遷居伊利諾伊州。三十歲時入選眾議院。道格拉斯是一名天才演說家，雖然身材矮小，卻以「矮小的巨人」而聞名。1846年，道格拉斯入選參議院。他狂熱鼓吹領土擴張。由於西部領土擴張引起了在新的 準州裏是否允許實行奴隸制的激烈爭論，道格拉斯於l 854年領頭制定了《堪薩斯一內伯拉斯加法案》，此法案取消了《密蘇裏妥協案》，允許當地居民自行選擇。

道格拉斯認為各州或準州的人民應自行投票決定是否實行奴隸制，林肯則爭辯說奴隸制不該擴展到現存的奴隸州以外的地方去了。林肯堅持認為奴隸制是邪惡的，而道格拉斯也同樣堅決地堅持說國家的生存要求尊重民眾的主權，即便這會使奴隸制擴展也無妨。

林肯最終贏得了公眾投票，但競選卻失敗了(當時參議員由立法機關選舉產生而不由公眾投票產生)。這次辯論使他成為共和黨全國領袖人物，以及1860年總統大選的競爭者。

以下的交鋒於1858年10月15日在伊利諾伊州的阿爾頓展開。

道格拉斯的開場白

自從林肯先生和我開始競選，近四個月時間已經過去。6月16日，共和黨代表大會在斯普林菲爾德召開，提名林肯先生作為他們的候選人競選美國參議員。當時他發表了一篇演說，提出了他所理解的共和黨的信條，以及在這場競爭中他要採取的立場。

林肯先生發言的要點是這樣的：首先，這個政府不能在有的州實行奴隸制有的州自由的分裂狀態下長存下去，儘管我們的祖先本來就是這樣安排的；它們要不都變為自由州，要不都變為奴隸州，要不全是這樣，要不全是那樣──不然這個國家就不能繼續生存。這裏我幾乎是原字原句向你們轉述他的觀點的。他提出的第二點是向美國最高法院的征戰，因為法院作出了德萊德‧斯科特裁決。他特別提出了他反對那項裁決的理由，即它剝奪了《美國憲法》規定的黑人的權利和利益，因為憲法條款規定必須保證每一個州的公民享有各州公民應有的權利、優惠待遇和豁免權。

7月10日我回到了家鄉，對芝加哥的人民發表了演講。發言中我表明我的目的是呼籲伊利諾伊州的人民繼續進行我在國會一直從事的事業。在那次演說中，我就林肯先生提出的論點與他進行了爭論。這樣，我們之間的論題就非常清晰明確了。針對林肯先生在斯普林菲爾德提出的兩個主張，我在芝加哥的發言反駁了他。第二天，7月11日，林肯先生在芝加哥回答了我，作了一定程度的解釋。並再次重申他在斯普林菲爾德演說中的立場。在芝加哥的演說中，他甚至比過去更進了一步，發表了關於黑人與白人平等的觀點。為了佐證他的立場，他採用了洛夫喬伊、科丁和其他一些廢奴主義演說家提出的、在本州北部和中部眾所熟知的論點，這就是：既然《獨立宣言》宣稱人人天賦自由和平等，那麼黑人的平等也是不可剝奪的權利，因此他們應該享有這種權利。他在發言中堅持說《獨立宣言》在肯定人人生來平等的條款中包括了黑人；並且居然還說，要是允許一個人認為本條款不包括黑人，那麼別人也就可以認為它不包括其他人。他說應該 摒棄所有這些人與人的區分、種族與種族的區分；我們應該採取《獨立宣言》的立場，宣告人人生來平等。

這樣，林肯先生和我本人之間就針對三個問題展開了爭論，本州人民對我們眾目以觀之。在接下來的七個星期裏，在芝加哥演說和我們第一次在奧塔華市相遇這段時間，他和我在許多中部的縣區裏都對大批的聽眾作了發言。在我的演說中，我將論題緊扣他採取的三個立場，反駁他關於這個國家不能照我們祖先原來的安排分為一半自由州一半蓄奴州的方式存在下去的觀點；反駁他由於德萊德‧斯科特裁決而對最高法院的討伐；反駁他所說的《獨立宣言》關於人人生來平等的提法包括並也適用 於黑人而不單單是白人的觀點。在我的每一場演說中，我分析林肯先生的三個主張，並指出我認為這些主張中包含的根本錯誤。第一，針對他的關於這個政府違反了上帝之規即分裂之家無可持存這種信條，我反駁道這是給我們憲法的不朽締造者臉上抹黑。我隨後說道，我經常重申、現在再次強調，照我看來我們的政府能夠按照我們祖先將國家分為部分自由州部分蓄奴州的方式永世長存──每一個州都有權根據自己的意願決定是禁止、廢除還是保存奴隸制。這個政府是建立在各州主權的堅實基礎上的，各州有權調整自己的地方體制以適應其具體情況。這項權利根據於這樣的理解和希望，即各地有其各自的利益，所以各地就必須有其不同和特殊的地方及當地的體制與它的需要和利益相一致。我們祖先創建這個政府時就知道，適合佛蒙特州格林山的法律制度並不適用於南卡羅來納州富饒的農場；他們當時就知道，正如我們現在很清楚一樣，適合伊利諾伊州美麗的草原的法律制度並不適用於加利福尼亞州的礦區。他們知道，在幅員如此遼闊的國家裏，由於土壤、氣候和利益如此多種多樣，就必須有相應多樣的地方法律、政策和制度使各州適應於自己的情況和需要。由於這個緣故，這個國家建立的基礎就是：每一個州都有權根據自己的意願對奴隸制及任何其他問題做出決定；而各州不應指責兄弟州的政策，更不應對此橫加干涉。

林肯的回答

道格拉斯法官設想我們的祖先要使我們政府處於半奴隸制半自由的狀態，這不是事實。應該弄清他所說的含義。他設想奴隸制本身是正義的──是由憲法的締造者所確立的。而事實的真相是，他們發現奴隸制存在於我們之中，卻對此現實無可奈何。在創建政府的過程中，他們留下了這個制度和許多其他不盡如人意之處。他們發現了奴隸制的存在而又留下了它，是因為立即取消它很困難──這其實是絕無可能的。當道格拉斯法官問我為什麼我們不能按祖先安排的那樣使政府保持半奴隸制半自由的狀態時，他的問題是建立在一個本身就是錯誤的設想上的。現在我對他提一個問題：我們政府的祖先採取的與存在於我們中的這個因素有關的政策是世界上最好的政策、唯一明智的政策、唯一可由我們安全地繼承實施的政策、永遠給與我們和平的政策──除非我們讓這個危險的因素統治我們所有人並成為全國性的制度，──那麼我要問他為什麼他不願這個政策原樣保持?我要問他為什麼急於提出與它有關的一個新政策?他自己說過他提出了一個新政策好吧，先不論奴役黑人在道德上是公正還是邪惡的。我還是希望我們新的 準州處於這樣的情況：白人能找到他們的家園－能找到一塊他們能改善處境的地方；在那裏他們能置身於一片新的土地上得以提高生活條件。我希望如此，並非僅僅是(正如我在其他地方說過的那樣，在這裏我還要說)對於生長於我們之間的自己的人民而言，同時也是對於不論身處何地的自由的白人而言──全世界的白人──在那裏不論是漢斯、貝普提斯特、帕特裏克還是世界上任何其他人都能找到新家園並過上更好的生活。

在過去的場合我曾提到過、而我不妨再提一下我所認為的道格拉斯法官和我之間的論題之究竟所在。說我要在自由州和蓄奴州之間挑起戰火，這一點我們之間沒什麼可爭的。他設想我要在白色種族和黑色種族之間建立一種完善的社會和政治平等，這也沒有什麼可爭的。這些都不是真正的論題，而道格拉斯法官卻企圖就它們挑起爭論。指責我持有這些主張是毫無事實根據的。這場爭論的真正問題在於──使人人心頭感到壓力的問題──一派的觀點將奴隸制度視為邪惡，而另一派的觀點不把它視為邪惡。視這個國家的奴隸制度為邪惡的觀點是共和黨的觀點。他們的一切行動、一切論點都圍繞這個觀點而展開，他們所有的主張都由這個觀點而延伸。他們將奴隸制度視為道義、社會和政治上的邪惡；‧但在持這種看法的同時，他們對這個制度在我們中的既成事實也有著正確的認識，知道以恰當的方式擺脫它有許多難處，還注意到這個問題牽涉的所有憲法上的責任。然而，由於對這些問題有正確的認識，他們渴望就此制定一條方針以確保奴隸制不會產生更大的危險。他們堅持認為，奴隸制應在盡可能的程度上作為邪惡來處理，而將它作為邪惡來處理的一個方法是應規定它不能擴大了。他們還渴望制定一條方針確保邪惡的奴隸制將於某時用和平的方式予以終結。這些就是我所理解的他們關於這個問題的看法；他們所有的觀點、他們所有的論點和主張都不出這個範圍。我曾經說過、這裏還要重申的是，如果我們其中有誰不認為奴隸制度在我提及的任何方面是邪惡的，他就站錯了位置而不應屬於我們這邊。如果我們其中有誰對奴隸制如此耐不住性子而無視它在我們中的既成事實，無視立即以恰當的方式擺脫它的困難，無視它所牽涉的憲法上的責任，他在我們的陣地上就站錯了位置。我們在實際行動中不予他以同情；他在我們之中是位置不當的。

關於將奴隸製作為邪惡處理並遏制其蔓延這個問題我還有話要說。除開這個奴隸制度以外，還有什麼其他東西威脅過這個國家的生存嗎?在我們中間，什麼東西是視為最可珍貴的呢?是我們自己的自由和繁榮。除開這個奴隸制度以外，還有什麼東西威脅過我們的自由和繁榮呢?如果這是事實的話，那你又怎能通過擴展奴隸制──使之蔓延，將其壯大──來改善事物的現狀呢?你身上長著一個囊腫毒瘤，但無法將它割除，因為這樣做會使你流血致死；然而，治療的方法卻肯定不是將毒瘤繁延、使其擴散於你的全身。這不是處理被你視為邪惡的東西的恰當方式。你再看看這種處理它的邪惡的和平的方式──抑制它的擴散，不讓它蔓延至原先它所不存在的新的 準土裏去。這是一種和平的方式、傳統的方式。我們的先輩為這種方式的運用給我們樹立了典範。

在另一方面，我已說過有種觀點認為奴隸制度不是邪惡的，這是今天民主黨的觀點。我並不是想說凡持有這種觀點的人都明確主張奴隸制是正義的，這一派包括所有那些明確主張它是正義的人，以及所有像道格拉斯法官那樣將其視為無關緊要而不表示它是正義還是邪惡的人。這兩種人匯總成一派，不把奴隸制度視為邪惡。

對於這種制度，民主黨的方針不能容忍人們對其邪惡的一丁半點發表隻言片語或作出最微小的暗示。就拿道格拉斯法官的論點為例吧。他說他「不在乎奴隸制」在 準州裏「被通過還是被否決」。對他的這種說法，我本人並不在乎這是用來表示他個人對這個問題的看法，還是僅用來表示他所希望建立的全國性的方針──這對解釋我的觀點同樣有價值。任何一個人都可以像他那樣說，只要這個人不認為奴隸制有什麼邪惡就行。然而，沒人能符合邏輯地說出這番話，如果他確實看到了奴隸制的邪惡，因為沒人能符合邏輯地說他對一種邪惡是被通過還是被否決滿不在乎。他可以說他不在乎一件無關緊要的事情被通過還是被否決，但他必須符合邏輯地在一件正義的事物和一件邪惡的事物之間做出選擇。道格拉斯法官爭辯說，只要一個地方需要奴隸，他們就有權擁有奴隸。要是奴隸制不是邪惡的，他們則可以擁有奴隸，但如果奴隸制是邪惡的，他就不能說人們有權作惡。他說，根據對等的道理，奴隸正像其他財產一樣允許進入一個新的 準州。要是奴隸和其他財產毫無區別的話，這樣說是嚴格地符合邏輯的；要是它和其它財產是對等的話，這個論點是完全符合邏輯的。但是如果你堅信一邊是邪惡的而另一邊是公正的，那麼公正和邪惡之間就沒有什麼可比性。你們可以從頭到尾將民主黨的方針細細地尋查一遍，不論是體現在其法令文書中，體現在德萊德‧斯科特裁決中，體現在交談言論中，還是體現在其精悍的格言體的論點中──奴隸制有什麼邪惡這樣的觀點都被小心謹慎地排除在外。

這就是論題的真正所在。這就是道格拉斯法官和我的舌戰偃息旗鼓時將繼續存留於這個國家的問題。它是兩種原則──正義和邪惡──之間在世界範圍內永不休止的爭鬥。這兩種原則自太古以來就針鋒相對，並將永遠鬥爭下去。其中之一是人類共同的權利，另一個則是神授的君王的權利。這後一種原則不論以何種面目發展都本性不移。它懷著一如既往的精神說道：「你們工作吧、辛勞吧!你們掙回麵包供我享用吧！」它不管以何種形式出現，不論是出自一個恣意踐踏本國人民 於腳下的君王之口，還是一個種族要奴役另一個種族的辯解，都出於那個專橫暴虐的原則……

The Lincoln－Douglas Debates

Douglas』 Opening Speech

It is now nearly four months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and myself commenced. One the sixteenth of June the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield and nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down what he understood to be the Republican creed, and the platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest.

    The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln』s were; First, that this government could not endure permanently divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it; that they must all become one thing or all become the other,--otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical language he used. His second proposition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision, urging as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the Negroes of the rights and benefits of that clausein the Constitution of the United States which guarantees to the citizens of each State all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several States.

    On the tenth of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the eleventh of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length, and reaffirming the positions which he had taken in his Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with the white man. He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy and Codding and other Abolition lecturers had made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State: to wit, that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free and equal, by divine law, also that negro equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the clause asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the position that it did not include the negro, others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that all these distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal.

    The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we went before the people of the State. During the following seven weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of the people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely to those three positions which he had taken, controverting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, controverting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposition that the Declaration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. . . . I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that this government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as slander upon the immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our government can endure forever, divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it,--each State having the right to prohibit, abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; and that right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that, inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when they made the government that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They knew that in a republic as broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate, and interest, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws,--the policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and the various states were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy of their neighbors.

Lincoln's Reply

    It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself,--was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficulty--the absolute impossibility--of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon, that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution,--I turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. . . .

    Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a Negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home,--may find some spot where they can better their condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere--the world over--in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life.

    I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free and the slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and, while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at sometime, as being wrong. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us.

    On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery--by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong,--restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example.

    On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong. This is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. . . .

    The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas' arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he does not care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he does not care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, this argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,--it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.

    That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle....