As we enjoy the usual political rhetoric this presidential campaign year –
“He’s a bigot!”
“He’s a liar!”
“Your mother wears army shoes!”
“…and the horse you rode in on!”
– it might be edifying, or just a blessed relief, to revisit a campaign from our history, one that aired and explored in detail a vital national question. Stephen A. Douglas, a U.S. senator from Illinois since 1847, sought reelection in 1858. Opposed to him was Abraham Lincoln, an adherent of the young Republican Party. At the party’s nominating convention, Lincoln had established the terms and stakes of the contest thus:
“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 the 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.
The immediate background for Lincoln’s claim was the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which in effect made slavery legal in all territories, despite the contrary provision in the Missouri Compromise and the wishes of the inhabitants.
Lincoln challenged the enormously popular Douglas to a series of debates. The written record of the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates is one of the pivotal documents in American history. Today, August 21, is the 150th anniversary of the first of the debates, held in Ottawa, Illinois.
Senator Douglas began:
I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind….
Mr. Lincoln…says that this government cannot endure permanently in the same condition in which it was made by its framers – divided into free and slave states….
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day made this government divided into free states and slave states, and left each state perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it?…
Illinois has…provided that the Negro shall not be a slave, and we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, his person, and his property, only depriving him of all political rights whatsoever….
Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that…each and every state of this Union is a sovereign power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this question of slavery and upon all its domestic institutions.
Mr. Lincoln replied:
I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the Judge [Douglas] has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say “that a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Does the Judge say it can stand? I don’t know whether he does or not….[W]hen the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some states, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it – restricting it from the new territories where it had not gone and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread.
The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think – and in this I charge nothing on the Judge’s motives – lately, I think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said that I believe we shall not have peace upon the question….
Now, I believe if we could arrest the spread and place it where Washington and Jefferson and Madison placed it,…[t]he crises would be past, and the institution might be left alone for a hundred years, if it should live so long, in the states where it exists; yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races.
译文:
雄辩之于林肯和道格拉斯（150年纪念）
在我们欣赏着今年总统大选的流行政治修辞时(比如–
“他是个顽固派!”
“他撒谎!”
“你的母亲很没品!”
“……和你骑着的马！”
– 当你重温历史上的一场竞选，探索细节并发表出一个重要的国家问题时，这些修辞或许能启迪你，又或许只是一种祝福的信念。史蒂芬A.道格拉斯在1847年成为美国伊利诺斯州的参议员，1858年再次参选。当时亚伯拉罕.林肯是他的对头。林肯是年轻的共和党的代表。在共和党的提名大会上，林肯就已经获得了很多期的奖金：
“一个议院互相分离并而鬼打鬼是不能站稳脚跟的。”我相信政府不能永远容忍半奴隶半自由的制度。我并不希望这个联盟解散，这个议院倒台，反而我希望它停止分离。它将会成为一个整体。奴隶制的反对者不会遏制它的蔓延或是告知并使公众相信这将被彻底地废除，也不会主张说奴隶制必须要在美国所有的州合法化，不管是新的还是旧的，北方的还是南方的法律。
林肯如此声称最直接的背景是最高法院在1857年对德雷德史考特诉桑福德案的决定。那个决定事实上使得奴隶制在所有的地区合法化，虽然这不符合《密苏里条约》的规定和公民们的意愿。
林肯在一系列的辩论中向受到大众欢迎的道格拉斯发出了挑战。林肯与道格拉斯间第七次的辩论就被记载在了美国历史上一份很重要的文件里。今天，8月21日，是举行伊利诺斯州渥太华的他们间第一次辩论的150周年纪念日。
参议员道格拉斯开始说：
我在你来之前就已经到这了，我来的目的是为了讨论如今煽动民心的首要正直问题……
林肯先生……说这个政府不可以永久容忍，在同样情况下有农民们引起的——将各个州分为奴隶制与非奴隶制……
华盛顿、杰斐逊、富兰克林、麦迪逊、哈密尔顿、杰伊，以及所有那个时代伟大的人物都将我们的州分成了奴隶制与非奴隶制，同时让每个州享有高度的自由自愿去做关于奴隶制的主题。为什么它不能在我们的祖先所创造出来的同样的原则下继续存在呢？……
伊利诺斯州已经规定，黑人并不是奴隶，我们也规定，他们不能成为公民。但我们会在他们的生活中保护他们个人的民权，他们的财产，而仅仅剥夺他们的政治权利……
现在，我认为伊利诺斯州有权利去废除或是禁止奴隶制的存在，同时我认为，肯塔基州同样有权利继续保护伊利诺斯州所想要废除的奴隶制，我认为……每个或是所有的我们联盟的州都有着自己独立自主的权力，本着自己所拥有的权利在奴隶制或是所有州内机构问题上做出决定。
林肯先生回答说：
我将会花多一点时间在审判官（道格拉斯）所说的一两件小事上。在斯普林菲尔德，他已经看过我的演讲，在演讲时我说“一个议院互相分离并并鬼打鬼是不能站稳脚跟的。”审判官说它能站稳脚跟吗？我不知道他说是还是不是……当审判官提醒我，说我经常跟他说奴隶制惯例在一些州已经存在了8年了，在一些州却不存在。我同意这个事实，但我并不是站在我们的祖先所站的位置上思考这个问题。我认为要在那些奴隶制还存在的新地区上限制它，并且要立法从源头上取消奴隶交易，从而用法律来限制它的蔓延。
在公众的思想里，他们坚信是时候废除它了。但最近我想——我并不指控审判官的动机——最近我觉得他，他的所作所为已经为这个惯例提供了新基础，在奴隶制永久性和国有化方面上。在这个新基础的层面上我说，我已经说我相信在这个问题上没有商量的余地……
现在，我相信如果我们可以遏制它的蔓延并把它摆在华盛顿、杰斐逊和麦迪逊思考的角度上，……危机将会成为过去，同时在存在奴隶制的州上，这个惯例将会一百年不变，如果它能存活那么久的话，然而对黑人和白人来说，它的消失是最好不过的事情。