"Suppose one of your merchants should move to Kansas and open
a liquor store; he has a right to take groceries or liquor there;
but the circumstances under which they shall be sold and all the
remedies must be prescribed by local legislation; and if that is
unfriendly it will drive him out just as effectually as if there
was a constitutional provision against the sale of liquor. Hence,
I assert, that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain
slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling people
and unfriendly legislation. If the people want slavery they will
have it, and if they do not want it you cannot force it upon them."
Neither Lincoln nor Douglas could as yet fairly and fearlessly
grapple with the great problem. Lincoln's virtual rejection and
defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court suggests not reform
but revolution. These dark hints that the decisions of the highest
tribunal should not be accepted or obeyed, that they were binding
only on those who believed in them, portended nothing less than
war. Slavery being an established institution, recognized by the
Constitution and regulated by law, had the right to exist. Lincoln
and his party abhorred it and resented the injustice of the law.
Obeying the dominant instinct of the race, the scrupulously observed
the form of the law while waging war upon it. On the other hand
it is impossible to find either legal or philosophical foundation
for Douglas' arguments. Slavery had been adjudged lawful in all
the Territories. The proposition gravely argued by him, that the
people could lawfully exclude a thing from a place where it had a
lawful right to be, was monstrous. He sternly rebuked Lincoln for
his irreverence in refusing to cordially accept the Dred Scott
decision and in the next breath, with shocking inconsistency, dissolved
its entire force in the menstruum of unfriendly legislation. The
decision was utterly repugnant to the people of the State. The
both viewed it as a political rather than a philosophic problem.
Both rejected it and the consequences flowing from it. Lincoln
quibbled when asked to accept it as a rule governing his political
conduct. Douglas, by a cunning device, sought to destroy its force
as a rule of private right. Lincoln insisted on the essential
dishonesty of the juggling trick by which Douglas got rid of the
adjudicated law. Douglas insisted on the anarchic spirit with
which Lincoln bade defiance to it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account