Lincoln says US is a house divided against itself

眾議院分歧言論

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

林肯先生在共和黨州代表大會結束時發表講話。 前一天，國民公會采取了史無前例的舉措，任命林肯為參議院候選人（通常參議院候選人在一月份新立法機構召開時選出）。 該演講針對的是參議員斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯（Stephen A. Douglas）以及任何可能考慮支持道格拉斯的共和黨人。 道格拉斯不在場。

資料來源：Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982。亞伯拉罕·林肯百科全書。 紐約：Da Capo Press, Inc.

伊利諾伊州共和黨大會，伊利諾伊州斯普林菲爾德，1858 年 6 月 16 日

主席先生和製憲會議的先生們。

如果我們能夠首先知道我們在哪裏，我們要去哪裏，我們就能更好地判斷要做什麽以及如何做。

自一項政策出台以來，我們已經進入了第五個年頭，該政策的公開目標和信心承諾是結束奴隸製煽動。

在這一政策的作用下，這種鼓動不僅沒有停止，反而不斷加劇。

在我看來，它不會停止，直到危機發生並過去——

“一個內部分裂的房子是站不住腳的。”

我相信這個政府不能永遠忍受半奴隸半自由的局麵。

我不期望聯邦解散——我不期望眾議院倒塌——但我確實期望它將停止分裂。

它將變成一件事，或者另一件事。

要麽奴隸製的反對者阻止奴隸製的進一步蔓延，並讓公眾相信奴隸製將最終滅絕； 或者它的擁護者將推動它向前發展，直到它在所有州，無論是舊州還是新州，無論是北方還是南方，都變得同樣合法。

難道我們不傾向於後一種情況嗎？

讓任何懷疑的人仔細思考現在幾乎完整的法律組合——可以說是一部機器——由內布拉斯加州原則和德雷德·斯科特決定組成。 讓他不僅考慮機器適合做什麽工作，以及適應程度如何； 而且，讓他研究它的建造曆史，如果他能的話，或者更確切地說，如果他不能的話，從一開始就追蹤它的主要老板之間的設計和行動協調的證據。

但到目前為止，隻有國會采取了行動。 為了挽救已經取得的成果，並為取得更多成果提供機會，人民的支持（無論是真實的還是表麵的）是必不可少的。

1854 年新的一年，州憲法將奴隸製排除在一半以上的州之外，並根據國會的禁令，將奴隸製排除在大部分國家領土之外。

四天後，鬥爭開始，最終廢除了國會的禁令。

這使得所有國家領土都進入了奴隸製狀態。 這是獲得的第一分。

這種必要性並沒有被忽視。 但在“擅自占地主權”這一著名論點中已經得到了規定，也可能得到了規定，也稱為“自治的神聖權利”，後一個短語雖然表達了任何政府的唯一合法基礎，但卻被如此歪曲了 在此試圖使用它時，就等於：如果任何一個人選擇奴役另一個人，則不得允許任何第三人反對。

這一論點被納入內布拉斯加州法案本身，其措辭如下：“該法案的真正意圖和意義不是在任何領土或州立法奴隸製，也不是將其排除在外；而是讓其人民完全離開 自由地以自己的方式組建和管理國內機構，僅受美國憲法的約束。”

然後，人們開始大聲疾呼，支持“擅自占地者主權”和“神聖的自治權”。

“但是，”反對派成員說，“讓我們更具體一些——讓我們修改該法案，以便明確宣布領土人民可以排除奴隸製。” “不是我們，”這項措施的朋友們說。 他們對修正案投了否決票。

內布拉斯加州法案正在國會通過時，發生了一起涉及黑人自由問題的法律案件，因為黑人的主人自願先將他帶入自由州，然後又帶入國會禁止的領土，並把他視為黑人。 兩人都曾長期受奴役，正在美國密蘇裏地區巡回法院受審； 內布拉斯加州的法案和訴訟都在 1854 年 5 月的同一個月做出了裁決。黑人的名字叫“德雷德·斯科特”，現在這個名字代表了該案最終做出的裁決。

在下屆總統選舉之前，該案被提交到美國最高法院並進行了辯論； 但其決定被推遲到選舉之後。 盡管如此，在選舉之前，參議員特朗布爾在參議院要求內布拉斯加州法案的主要倡導者發表他的意見，

一個領土的人民是否可以根據憲法將奴隸製排除在其範圍之外； 後者回答說：“這是最高法院的問題。”

選舉來了。 布坎南先生當選，並得到了認可。 這是獲得的第二分。 然而，這項支持以近四十萬票的差距未能獲得明顯的多數票，因此也許並不是絕對可靠和令人滿意的。

即將離任的總統在他最後的年度致辭中，盡可能令人印象深刻地向人民回響了背書的重要性和權威性。

最高法院再次開庭，沒有宣布判決，但下令重新辯論。

總統就職典禮到了，法院仍然沒有做出決定； 但即將上任的總統在就職演說中熱切地勸告人民遵守即將做出的決定，無論它是什麽。

然後，幾天後，做出了決定。

內布拉斯加州法案的著名作者很早就找到了在國會大廈發表演講的機會，支持德雷德·斯科特決定，並強烈譴責所有反對該決定的人。

新總統也抓住了西利曼信函的早期契機，讚同並強烈解釋了這一決定，並表達了他對從未有過的任何不同觀點的驚訝。

最後，總統和內布拉斯加州法案的起草者之間爆發了一場爭論，爭論的焦點僅僅是事實問題，即萊康普頓憲法在任何公正意義上是否是由堪薩斯人民製定的。 在那場爭吵中，後者宣稱他想要的隻是人民的公平投票，他不在乎奴隸製是否被否決。 我不明白他聲明他不在乎奴隸製是否被投票否決，這隻是他的意圖，而不是作為他要給公眾留下深刻印象的政策的恰當定義——他聲稱他為此遭受了苦難的原則 並準備好忍受到底。

他很可能會堅持這一原則。 如果他有任何父母的感覺，他很可能會堅持下去。 這一原則是他最初的內布拉斯加州學說僅存的碎片。 在德雷德·斯科特案的判決下，“占屋者主權”不複存在，像臨時腳手架一樣倒塌——就像鑄造廠的模具在一次爆炸後又落回鬆散的沙子中——幫助進行了一次選舉，然後被踢到了議會。 風。 他最近與共和黨人共同反對萊康普頓憲法，與最初的內布拉斯加州主義毫無關係。 這場鬥爭的焦點是人民製定自己憲法的權利，在這一點上他和共和黨人從未有過分歧。

德雷德·斯科特案的幾個要點，與道格拉斯參議員的“不在乎”政策相結合，構成了目前進展狀態的機製。

該機械的工作點是：

首先，從美國憲法中使用的術語的意義上來說，從非洲進口的黑人奴隸以及此類奴隸的後裔都不能成為任何州的公民。

提出這一點是為了在任何可能的情況下剝奪黑人從美國憲法條款中獲得的利益，該條款聲明：

“各州公民應享有各州公民的所有特權和豁免權。”

其次，“根據美國憲法”，國會和領土立法機構都不能將奴隸製排除在任何美國領土之外。

提出這一點是為了讓個人可以用奴隸填滿這些領土，而不會有失去奴隸作為財產的危險，從而增加該機構在未來永久存在的機會。

第三，在自由州將黑人實際奴役是否會使其獲得自由，與持有者相比，美國法院不會做出決定，但將由該黑人可能所在的任何蓄奴州的法院來決定 被主人強行塞進去的。

這一點已經提出，但不要立即強調； 但是，如果默許一段時間，並且在選舉中得到人民的明顯支持，那麽我們就可以維持這樣一個合乎邏輯的結論：在伊利諾伊州自由州，德雷德·斯科特的主人可以合法地對德雷德·斯科特做的事情，其他所有主人都可以合法地做 與伊利諾伊州或任何其他自由州的任何其他一名或一千名奴隸一起。

與這一切相輔相成、攜手共進的是，內布拉斯加州主義，或者說它的剩餘部分，是教育和塑造公眾輿論，至少是北方公眾輿論，讓他們不關心奴隸製是被否決還是被讚成。

這準確地顯示了我們現在所處的位置； 部分也是我們所關注的地方。

它將為後者提供更多的線索，讓我們回過頭來，回顧一下已經陳述過的一係列曆史事實。 現在，有些事情將不再像發生時那麽黑暗和神秘。 人民將獲得“完全自由”“僅受憲法約束”。 憲法與此有何關係，外界無法得知。 現在很明顯，這對於德雷德·斯科特後來的決定來說是一個完全合適的契機，並宣布人民的完美自由根本就沒有自由。

為什麽明確宣布人民有權排除奴隸製的修正案被否決？ 現在很明顯，如果采用它，就會破壞德雷德·斯科特決定的有利條件。

法院判決為何被擱置？ 為什麽連參議員的個人意見都要等到總統選舉之後才發表？ 現在很明顯，當時的言論會損害選舉所依據的“完全自由”論點。

為什麽即將卸任的總統要對這一背書表示祝賀？ 為何遲遲不提出反駁？ 為什麽即將上任的總統預先勸告支持這一決定？

這些東西看起來就像是一匹精力旺盛的馬在準備上馬時小心翼翼地拍拍和撫摸，因為擔心它會讓騎手摔倒。

為什麽在總統和其他人批準決定後倉促行事？

我們不能絕對知道所有這些精確的改編都是音樂會前的結果。 但是當我們看到很多框架木材時，我們知道這些木材是在不同時間和地點由不同工人製成的，例如斯蒂芬、富蘭克林、羅傑和詹姆斯，我們看到這些木材連接在一起， 看看他們精確地製作了房屋或磨坊的框架，所有的榫頭和榫眼都完全合適，並且不同部件的所有長度和比例都完全適合各自的位置，而不是太多或太少——不是 甚至省略腳手架——或者，如果缺少一個部件，我們看到框架中的位置完全安裝並準備好將這樣的部件放進去——在這種情況下，我們發現不可能不相信斯蒂芬、富蘭克林、羅傑和 詹姆斯從一開始就互相理解，並且在第一次接觸之前就製定了一個共同的計劃或草案。

不應忽視的是，根據內布拉斯加州法案，州人民和領地人民將享有“完全自由”“僅受憲法約束”。

為什麽要提到國家？ 他們是為領土立法，而不是為州或州而立法。 當然，一個州的人民應該而且應該服從美國憲法； 但為什麽要在這純粹的領土法中提到這一點呢？ 為什麽一個領土的人民和一個州的人民被混為一談，並且他們與該州憲法的關係被視為完全相同？

雖然最高法院首席大法官坦尼在德雷德·斯科特案中的意見以及所有同意法官的單獨意見明確聲明，美國憲法既不允許國會也不允許領土立法機構將奴隸製排除在任何美國聯邦之外。 州領土，他們都沒有聲明同一憲法是否允許一個州或一個州的人民將其排除在外。

或許，這隻是一個遺漏； 但誰能完全確定，麥克萊恩或柯蒂斯是否試圖讓一個州的人民擁有無限權力的宣言，將奴隸製排除在他們的限製之外，就像蔡斯和梅斯代表美國尋求獲得這樣的宣言一樣？ 一個地區的人民，將其納入內布拉斯加州的法案中——我問，誰能完全確定該法案不會在前一種情況下被否決，就像在另一種情況下一樣？

尼爾森法官提出了最接近宣布國家對奴隸製擁有權力的觀點。 他不止一次地使用了《內布拉斯加州法案》的精確理念和語言來探討這個問題。 有一次，他的確切措辭是：“除非權力受到美國憲法的限製，否則州的法律在其管轄範圍內的奴隸製問題上具有至高無上的地位。”

在什麽情況下，美國憲法對各州的權力進行如此限製，這是一個懸而未決的問題，正如《內布拉斯加州法案》中對領土權力的限製一樣。 把這個和那個放在一起，我們就有了另一個漂亮的小縫隙，不久之後我們可能會看到最高法院的另一項裁決，宣布美國憲法不允許一個州將奴隸製排除在其限製之外。

如果“不在乎奴隸製是否被投票否決”這一原則足以引起公眾的注意，並承諾在作出這一決定時可以維持這一決定，那麽這種情況是可以預期的。

這樣的決定是奴隸製現在在所有州都同樣合法所缺乏的。

無論受歡迎還是不受歡迎，這樣的決定很可能即將到來，而且很快就會降臨到我們身上，除非當前政治王朝的力量受到挑戰並被推翻。

我們將愉快地躺下，夢想著密蘇裏州人民即將實現他們的國家自由； 相反，我們將清醒地認識到最高法院已將伊利諾伊州定為蓄奴州的現實。

迎接並推翻那個王朝的權力，是現在擺在所有阻止這一成就的人們麵前的工作。

這就是我們必須做的。

但我們怎樣才能最好地做到這一點呢？

有些人向自己的朋友公開譴責我們，卻輕聲地對我們說，道格拉斯參議員是實現這一目標的最合適工具。 他們沒有告訴我們，他也沒有告訴我們，他希望實現任何這樣的目標。 他們希望我們從事實中推斷出，他現在與現任王朝的統治者有一點爭執； 他經常與我們一起投票，就某一點進行投票，而他和我們在這一點上從未有過分歧。

他們提醒我們，他是一位偉人，而我們中最大的人卻是非常渺小的。 讓這一點得到承認吧。 但“活著的狗比死了的獅子好”。 道格拉斯法官的這項工作即使不是一頭死獅子，也至少是一頭關在籠子裏、沒有牙齒的獅子。 他怎麽能反對奴隸製的進步呢？ 他對此什麽都不關心。 他公開宣稱的使命是讓“公眾的心”對此漠不關心。

一份主要的道格拉斯民主黨報紙認為，道格拉斯的卓越才能是抵製非洲奴隸貿易複興所必需的。

道格拉斯是否相信重振貿易的努力即將到來？ 他沒有這麽說。 他真的這麽認為嗎？ 但如果是的話，他又如何能夠抗拒呢？ 多年來，他一直努力證明將黑人奴隸帶入新領土是白人的神聖權利。 他能否表明，在最便宜的地方購買它們並不是一項神聖的權利？ 而且，毫無疑問，它們在非洲的售價比在弗吉尼亞更便宜。

他竭盡全力將整個奴隸製問題簡化為一項純粹的財產權問題。 因此，他怎麽能反對外國奴隸貿易——他怎麽能拒絕“財產”貿易是“完全自由的”——除非他這樣做是為了保護國內生產？ 由於國內生產商可能不會要求保護，他將完全沒有理由反對。

我們知道，道格拉斯參議員認為，一個人今天可能比昨天更聰明，當他發現自己錯了時，他可能會正確地改變。

但是，我們是否可以因此而推斷他會做出任何他本人沒有暗示過的特定改變？ 我們能否安全地將我們的行動建立在這種模糊的推論之上？

現在，一如既往，我希望不要歪曲道爾加斯法官的立場，質疑他的動機，或者做任何可能冒犯他個人的事情。

無論何時，如果有的話，他和我們能夠在原則上走到一起，以便我們的偉大事業能夠得到他的偉大能力的幫助，我希望不會造成任何偶然的障礙。

但顯然，他現在不在我們身邊——他沒有假裝在——他也沒有承諾永遠在我們身邊。

那麽，我們的事業必須委托給我們毫無疑問的朋友，並由他們來領導——他們的雙手是自由的，他們的心是在工作上的——他們確實關心結果。

兩年前，全國共和黨人聚集了超過一百三十萬人。

我們這樣做是出於抵抗共同危險的單一衝動，盡管外部環境對我們不利。

我們從四風中聚集了奇怪的、不和諧的、甚至是敵對的因素，在紀律嚴明、驕傲而嬌生慣養的敵人的持續猛烈火力下，形成並戰鬥到底。

當年我們勇敢無畏，現在卻步履蹣跚嗎？ - 現在 - 當同一個敵人搖擺不定、四分五裂、好戰時？

這個結果是沒有疑問的。 我們不會失敗——如果我們堅定不移，我們就不會失敗。

明智的建議可能會加速進程，錯誤可能會延遲進程，但勝利遲早一定會到來。

資料來源：《亞伯拉罕·林肯文集》，羅伊·P·巴斯勒編輯。

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.