the writings-4-第6部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



bill　is　a　forgery？　　Does　he　say　that　what　I　present　as　a　copy　of　the

bill　reported　by　himself　is　a　forgery；　or　what　is　presented　as　a

transcript　from　the　Globe　of　the　quotations　from　Bigler's　speech　is　a

forgery？　　Does　he　say　the　quotations　from　his　own　speech　are

forgeries？　　Does　he　say　this　transcript　from　Trumbull's　speech　is　a

forgery？



＇〃He　didn't　deny　one　of　them。〃＇



I　would　then　like　to　know　how　it　comes　about　that　when　each　piece　of

a　story　is　true　the　whole　story　turns　out　false。　　I　take　it　these

people　have　some　sense；　they　see　plainly　that　Judge　Douglas　is

playing　cuttle…fish；　a　small　species　of　fish　that　has　no　mode　of

defending　itself　when　pursued　except　by　throwing　out　a　black　fluid；

which　makes　the　water　so　dark　the　enemy　cannot　see　it；　and　thus　it

escapes。　　Ain't　the　Judge　playing　the　cuttle…fish？



Now；　I　would　ask　very　special　attention　to　the　consideration　of　Judge

Douglas's　speech　at　Jacksonville；　and　when　you　shall　read　his　speech

of　to…day；　I　ask　you　to　watch　closely　and　see　which　of　these　pieces

of　testimony；　every　one　of　which　he　says　is　a　forgery；　he　has　shown

to　be　such。　　Not　one　of　them　has　he　shown　to　be　a　forgery。　　Then　I

ask　the　original　question；　if　each　of　the　pieces　of　testimony　is

true；　how　is　it　possible　that　the　whole　is　a　falsehood？



In　regard　to　Trumbull's　charge　that　he　Douglas＇　inserted　a　provision

into　the　bill　to　prevent　the　constitution　being　submitted　to　the

people；　what　was　his　answer？　　He　comes　here　and　reads　from　the

Congressional　Globe　to　show　that　on　his　motion　that　provision　was

struck　out　of　the　bill。　　Why；　Trumbull　has　not　said　it　was　not

stricken　out；　but　Trumbull　says　he　＇Douglas＇　put　it　in；　and　it　is　no

answer　to　the　charge　to　say　he　afterwards　took　it　out。　　Both　are

perhaps　true。　　It　was　in　regard　to　that　thing　precisely　that　I　told

him　he　had　dropped　the　cub。　　Trumbull　shows　you　that　by　his

introducing　the　bill　it　was　his　cub。　　It　is　no　answer　to　that

assertion　to　call　Trumbull　a　liar　merely　because　he　did　not　specially

say　that　Douglas　struck　it　out。　　Suppose　that　were　the　case；　does　it

answer　Trumbull？　　I　assert　that　you　＇pointing　to　an　individual＇　are

here　to…day；　and　you　undertake　to　prove　me　a　liar　by　showing　that　you

were　in　Mattoon　yesterday。　　I　say　that　you　took　your　hat　off　your

head；　and　you　prove　me　a　liar　by　putting　it　on　your　head。　　That　is

the　whole　force　of　Douglas's　argument。



Now；　I　want　to　come　back　to　my　original　question。　　Trumbull　says　that

Judge　Douglas　had　a　bill　with　a　provision　in　it　for　submitting　a

constitution　to　be　made　to　a　vote　of　the　people　of　Kansas。　　Does

Judge　Douglas　deny　that　fact？　　Does　be　deny　that　the　provision　which

Trumbull　reads　was　put　in　that　bill？　　Then　Trumbull　says　he　struck　it

out。　　Does　he　dare　to　deny　that？　　He　does　not；　and　I　have　the　right

to　repeat　the　question　；Why　Judge　Douglas　took　it　out？　　Bigler　has

said　there　was　a　combination　of　certain　senators；　among　whom　he　did

not　include　Judge　Douglas；　by　which　it　was　agreed　that　the　Kansas

Bill　should　have　a　clause　in　it　not　to　have　the　constitution　formed

under　it　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people。　　He　did　not　say　that

Douglas　was　among　them；　but　we　prove　by　another　source　that　about　the

same　time　Douglas　comes　into　the　Senate　with　that　provision　stricken

out　of　the　bill。　　Although　Bigler　cannot　say　they　were　all　working　in

concert；　yet　it　looks　very　much　as　if　the　thing　was　agreed　upon　and

done　with　a　mutual　understanding　after　the　conference；　and　while　we

do　not　know　that　it　was　absolutely　so；　yet　it　looks　so　probable　that

we　have　a　right　to　call　upon　the　man　who　knows　the　true　reason　why　it

was　done　to　tell　what　the　true　reason　was。　　When　he　will　not　tell

what　the　true　reason　was；　he　stands　in　the　attitude　of　an　accused

thief　who　has　stolen　goods　in　his　possession；　and　when　called　to

account　refuses　to　tell　where　he　got　them。　　Not　only　is　this　the

evidence；　but　when　he　comes　in　with　the　bill　having　the　provision

stricken　out；　he　tells　us　in　a　speech；　not　then　but　since；　that　these

alterations　and　modifications　in　the　bill　had　been　made　by　HIM；　in

consultation　with　Toombs；　the　originator　of　the　bill。　　He　tells　us

the　same　to…day。　　He　says　there　were　certain　modifications　made　in

the　bill　in　committee　that　he　did　not　vote　for。　　I　ask　you　to

remember；　while　certain　amendments　were　made　which　he　disapproved　of；

but　which　a　majority　of　the　committee　voted　in；　he　has　himself　told

us　that　in　this　particular　the　alterations　and　modifications　were

made　by　him；　upon　consultation　with　Toombs。　　We　have　his　own　word

that　these　alterations　were　made　by　him；　and　not　by　the　committee。

Now；　I　ask；　what　is　the　reason　Judge　Douglas　is　so　chary　about　coming

to　the　exact　question？　　What　is　the　reason　he　will　not　tell　you

anything　about　How　it　was　made；　BY　WHOM　it　was　made；　or　that　he

remembers　it　being　made　at　all？　　Why　does　he　stand　playing　upon　the

meaning　of　words　and　quibbling　around　the　edges　of　the　evidence？　　If

he　can　explain　all　this；　but　leaves　it　unexplained；　I　have　the　right

to　infer　that　Judge　Douglas　understood　it　was　the　purpose　of　his

party；　in　engineering　that　bill　through；　to　make　a　constitution；　and

have　Kansas　come　into　the　Union　with　that　constitution；　without　its

being　submitted　to　a　vote　of　the　people。　　If　he　will　explain　his

action　on　this　question；　by　giving　a　better　reason　for　the　facts　that

happened　than　he　has　done；　it　will　be　satisfactory。　　But　until　he

does　thatuntil　he　gives　a　better　or　more　plausible　reason　than　he

has　offered　against　the　evidence　in　the　caseI　suggest　to　him　it

will　not　avail　him　at　all　that　he　swells　himself　up；　takes　on

dignity；　and　calls　people　liars。　　Why；　sir；　there　is　not　a　word　in

Trumbull's　speech　that　depends　on　Trumbull's　veracity　at　all。　　He　has

only　arrayed　the　evidence　and　told　you　what　follows　as　a　matter　of

reasoning。　　There　is　not　a　statement　in　the　whole　speech　that　depends

on　Trumbull's　word。　　If　you　have　ever　studied　geometry；　you　remember

that　by　a　course　of　reasoning　Euclid　proves　that　all　the　angles　in　a

triangle　are　equal　to　two　right　angles。　　Euclid　has　shown　you　how　to

work　it　out。　　Now；　if　you　undertake　to　disprove　that　proposition；　and

to　show　that　it　is　erroneous；　would　you　prove　it　to　be　false　by

calling　Euclid　a　liar？　　They　tell　me　that　my　time　is　out；　and

therefore　I　close。









FIFTH　JOINT　DEBATE；　AT　GALESBURGH；



OCTOBER　7；　1858



Mr。　LINCOLN'S　REPLY。



MY　FELLOW…CITIZENS：　A　very　large　portion　of　the　speech　which　Judge

Douglas　has　addressed　to　you　has　previously　been　delivered　and　put　in

print。　　I　do　not　mean　that　for　a　hit　upon　the　Judge　at　all。…　　If　I

had　not　been　interrupted；　I　was　going　to　say　that　such　an　answer　as　I

was　able　to　make　to　a　very　large　portion　of　it　had　already　been　more

than　once　made　and　published。　　There　has　been　an　opportunity　afforded

to　the　public　to　see　our　respective　views　upon　the　topics　discussed

in　a　large　portion　of　the　speech　which　he　has　just　delivered。　　I　make

these　remarks　for　the　purpose　of　excusing　myself　for　not　passing　over

the　entire　ground　that　the　Judge　has　traversed。　　I　however　desire　to

take　up　some　of　the　points　that　he　has　attended　to；　and　ask　your

attention　to　them；　and　I　shall　follow　him　backwards　upon　some　notes

which　I　have　taken；　reversing　the　order；　by　beginning　where　he

concluded。



The　Judge　has　alluded　to　the　Declaration　of　Independence；　and

insisted　that　negroes　are　not　included　in　that　Declaration；　and　that

it　is　a　slander　upon　the　framers　of　that　instrument　to　suppose　that

negroes　were　meant　therein；　and　he　asks　you：　Is　it　possible　to

believe　that　Mr。　Jefferson；　who　penned　the　immortal　paper；　could　have

supposed　himself　applying　the　language　of　that　instrument　to　the

negro　race；　and　yet　held　a　portion　of　that　race　in　slavery？　　Would　he

not　at　once　have　freed　them？　　I　only　have　to　remark　upon　this　part　of

the　Judge's　speech　（and　that；　too；　very　briefly；　for　I　shall　not

detain　myself；　or　you；　upon　that　point　for　any　great　length　of　time）；

that　I　believe　the　entire　records　of　the　world；　from　the　date　of　the

Declaration　of　Independence　up　to　within　three　years　ago；　may　be

searched　in　vain　for　one　single　affirmation；　from　one　single　man；

that　the　negro　was　not　included　in　the　Declaration　of　Independence；　I

think　I　may　defy　Judge　Douglas　to　show　that　he　ever　said　so；　that

Washington　ever　said　so；　that　any　President　ever　said　so；　that　any

member　of　Congress　ever　said　so；　or　that　any　living　man　upon　the

whole　earth　ever　said　so；　until　the　necessities　of　the　present　policy

of　the　Democratic　party；　in　regard　to　slavery；　had　to　invent　that

affirmation。　　And　I　will　remind　Judge　Douglas　and　this　audience　that

while　Mr。　Jefferson　was　the　owner　of　slaves；　as　undoubtedly　he　was；

in　speaking　upon　this　very　subject　he　used　the　strong　language　that

〃he　trembled　for　his　country　when　he　remembered　that　God　was　just〃；

and　I　will　offer　the　highest　premium　in　my　power　to　Judge　Douglas　if

he　will　show　that　he；　in　all　his　life；　ever　uttered　a　sentiment　at

all　akin　to　that　of　Jefferson。



The　next　thing　to　which　I　will　ask　your　attention　is　the　Judge's

comments　upon　the　fact；　as　he　assumes　it　to　be；　that　we　cannot　call

our　public　meetings　as　Republican　meetings；　and　he　instances　Tazewell

County　as　one　of　the　places　where　the　friends　of　Lincoln　have　called

a　public　meeting　and　have　not　dared　to　name　it　a　Republican　meeting。

He　instances　Monroe　County　as　another；　where　Judge　Trumbull　and　Jehu

Baker　addressed　the　persons　whom　the　Judge　assumes　to　be　the　friends

of　Lincoln　calling　them　the　〃Free　Democracy。〃　　I　have　the　honor　to

inform　Judge　Douglas　that　he　spoke　in　that　very　county　of　Tazewell

last　Saturday；　and　I　was　there　on　Tuesday　last；　and　when　he　spoke

there；　he　spoke　under　a　call　not　venturing　to　use　the　word

〃Democrat。〃　　＇Turning　to　Judge　Douglas。＇　what　think　you　of　this？



So；　again；　there　is　another　thi