(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Welcome to the MAKING OF A NATION -- American history in VOA Special English. In eighteen fifty, the United States faced the threat of a split between northern and southern states. The two sides disagreed strongly over the issue of slavery. At that time, owning slaves was legal in the southern states. But the question remained: should slavery be legal in new territories in the western part of the country? The issue needed to be settled. There was a danger of civil war between the North and the South. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky offered a compromise. Conservative southern lawmakers rejected it. Other lawmakers supported it; they believed it was the only way to save the union of states. This week in our series, Warren Scheer and Sarah Long continue our story of the Compromise of Eighteen Fifty.
One of the nation's top political leaders, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, supported Henry Clay's compromise. Webster believed that slavery was evil. Yet he believed that national unity was more important. He did not want the nation to divide. He did not want to see the end of the United States of America. Daniel Webster spoke to other members of the Senate. His speech was an appeal to both sides in the dispute. "I speak today," he said, "to save the Union. I speak today out of a concerned and troubled heart. I speak for the return of a spirit of unity. I speak for the return of that general feeling of agreement which makes the blessings of this union so special to us all." Senator Webster spoke of how he hated slavery. He spoke of his fight against the spread of slavery in America. But he disagreed with those who wanted laws making slavery illegal in new territories. It would not be wise to pass such laws, he said. They would only make the South angry. They would only push the South away from the Union. Then Webster spoke about the things the North and South had done to make each other angry. One, he said, was the failure of the North to return runaway slaves. He said the South had good reason to protest. It was a matter of law. The law was contained in article four of the national constitution. "Every member of every northern legislature," Webster said, "has sworn to support the constitution of the United States. And the constitution says that states must return runaway slaves to their owners. This part of the constitution has as much power as any other part. It must be obeyed."
Next, Webster spoke about the Abolition societies. These were organizations that demanded an end to slavery everywhere in the country. "I do not think that Abolition societies are useful," Webster said. "At the same time, I believe that thousands of their members are honest and good citizens who feel they must do something for liberty. However, their interference with the South has produced trouble." As an example, Webster spoke about the state of Virginia. Slavery was legal there. Webster noted that public opinion in Virginia had been turning against slavery until Abolitionists angered the people. After that, he said, no one would talk openly against slavery. He said Abolitionists were not ending slavery, but helping it to continue. Then Webster said the North also had a right to protest about some things the South had done. He said the South was wrong to try to take slaves into new American territories. He said attempts to do this violated earlier agreements to limit slavery to areas where it already existed. Webster said the North also had a right to protest statements by southern leaders about working conditions in the North. Southerners often said that slaves in the South lived better lives than free workers in the North.
Webster appealed to both sides to forgive each other. He urged them to come to an agreement. He said the South could never leave the Union without violence. Webster said the two sides were joined together socially, economically, culturally, and in many other ways. There was no way to divide them. No Congress, he said, could establish a border between the North and South that either side would accept. Daniel WebsterIn general, Webster's speech to the Senate was moderate. He wanted to appeal to reason, not emotion. Yet it was difficult for him to be unemotional. His voice rose as he finished. "Secession!" He called out. "Peaceable secession! Your eyes and mine will never see that happen. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. We live under a great constitution. Is it to be melted away by secession, as the snows of a mountain are melted away under the sun? "Let us not speak of the possibility of secession. Let us not debate an idea so full of horror. Let us not live with the thought of such darkness. Instead, let us come out into the light of day. Let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union." Northern Abolitionists quickly criticized Daniel Webster's speech. They called him a traitor. Yet most people of the North accepted Webster's appeal for compromise. His speech cooled the debate that threatened a complete break between the North and South.
The dispute about slavery continued in the United States. It would, in time, lead to civil war. But historians say Webster's support for the compromise of eighteen fifty probably helped delay that crisis. Daniel Webster's speech was not the end of debate on the compromise. Four days later, Senator William Seward of New York rose to speak. Seward said he opposed any compromise with the South. He said he did not want slavery in the new western territories. And he urged a national policy to start ending slavery everywhere -- peacefully. Seward criticized Daniel Webster for speaking against the Abolition societies. He said such groups represented a moral movement that could not be stopped. He said the movement would continue until all the slaves in America were free. Seward then criticized another senator, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. He denounced Calhoun's demands for a political balance between the North and South. He said this would change the United States from a united, national democracy to an alliance of independent states. In such a system, he said, the minority would be able to veto actions of the majority.
Many lawmakers seemed to support the idea of Clay's compromise. But they could not agree on which parts of it to pass first. Southern supporters were afraid that if a statehood bill for California was passed first, then northerners would refuse to pass the other parts of the compromise. So, southerners wanted to include all parts in one bill. Hopes for the compromise increased after the death of John C. Calhoun on the last day of March, eighteen-fifty. Calhoun was pro-slavery. He had refused to compromise on the issue. One newspaper in Calhoun's state of South Carolina said: "The senator's death is best for the country and his own honor. The slavery question will now be settled. Calhoun would have blocked a settlement." A committee of thirteen men was named to write a bill based on Henry Clay's compromise. The committee had six members from slave states and six from free states. Henry Clay was named to lead it. Three weeks later, the committee offered its bill. It was much like the compromise Clay had first proposed. It made California a free state. It created territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah. It settled the border dispute between Texas and New Mexico. It ended the slave trade in the District of Columbia. And it urged approval of a new law dealing with runaway slaves. For about a month, the proposed bill seemed to have the support of the administration of President Zachary Taylor. But then, President Taylor made it clear that he would do everything he could to defeat it. That will be our story next week.
重点解析
1.speak for 为......辩护；代表......说话
I speak for all 7,000 members of our organization.
我代表本组织的7000名成员发言。
2.appeal to 呼吁；求助于
He will appeal to the state for an extension of unemployment benefits.
他将呼吁国家延长领取失业救济金的时限。
3.call out 呼喊；召集
If you know the answer, put your hand up, don't call out.
假如你知道答案就举手，不要大声嚷嚷。
4.melt away 融化；消失
When I tried it on the way home that night, the stress seemed to melt away.
那天晚上我走在回家的路上，压力好像消失了。
参考译文
欢迎收听VOA慢速英语之建国史话节目。1850年，美国面临南北分裂的威胁，双方在奴隶制问题上意见分歧很大。当时，拥有奴隶在南方各州是合法的。但问题仍然存在：奴隶制在美国西部的新领地上是否应该合法？这个问题急需解决，南北方之间存在内战的危险。肯塔基州参议员亨利·克莱提出了一项折衷法案。保守的南方立法者拒绝了该法案，其他立法者表示支持，他们认为这是拯救美国联邦的唯一途径。在本周的系列节目中，沃伦·谢尔和莎拉·朗将继续讲述有关1850年折衷法案的故事。
美国最高政治领袖之一，马萨诸塞州参议员丹尼尔·韦伯斯特支持亨利·克莱的折衷法案。韦伯斯特认为奴隶制是邪恶的，但民族团结更为重要。他不希望国家分裂，不想看到美利坚合众国的终结。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特与参议院其他成员进行了交谈，他的演讲对争端双方都具有吸引力。他说：“我心怀忧虑不安之情发表这次演讲，目的是为了拯救联邦。我呼吁找回曾经拥有的精神团结，找回那种总体认同感，让联邦的福祉对所有人来说都极具重要性。”参议员韦伯斯特谈到他是痛恨奴隶制，谈到他为反对奴隶制在美国扩沿而进行的斗争。但他不同意那些希望通过法律使奴隶制在新领地变为非法的人的意见。他说，通过这样的法律是不明智的，它们只会激怒南方人，只会让南方与联邦分裂。
随后，韦伯斯特谈到了南北双方激怒双方的所作所为。他说，其中一个原因是北方没有归还逃跑的奴隶。他说南方有充分的理由抗议，这有法可依，其载于《国家宪法》第四条。韦伯斯特说：“北方立法机构的每位成员都宣誓支持美国宪法。宪法规定，各州必须把逃跑的奴隶归还给他们的主人。宪法中的此部分内容与其他部分具有同等的效力，必须遵守执行。”接下来，韦伯斯特谈到了废除奴隶制度，有些组织要求结束全国各地的奴隶制。韦伯斯特说：“我不认为废除奴隶制度有用。同时，我相信这些组织中的数千人是诚实善良的公民，他们觉得必须为自由而奋斗。然而，他们对南方的干涉带来了麻烦。”例如，韦伯斯特谈到了弗吉尼亚州，奴隶制在那是合法的。韦伯斯特指出，弗吉尼亚州的公众舆论一直反对奴隶制，但在废奴主义者激怒人民之后，就没人公开反对了。废奴主义者没有终结奴隶制，而是在帮助它延续下去。韦伯斯特表示，北方也有权对南方所做的某些事情提出抗议。他说南方试图把奴隶带到美国新领地上的做法是错误的，这样做违反了早先的协议，协议中写明将奴隶制限制在已经存在的地区。韦伯斯特说，北方也有权抗议南方领导人关于北方工作条件的声明。南方人常说南方的奴隶比北方的自由劳动者生活得更好。
韦伯斯特呼吁双方互相原谅，他敦促他们达成协议。他说，如果没有暴力发生，南方永远不会脱离联邦。韦伯斯特说，双方在社会、经济、文化等众多方面团结在一起，无法分隔。国会无法在南北之间建立一条双方都能接受的边界。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特在参议院发表的演讲言辞温和，他想诉诸理性，而不是情感。但他很难不动情，结尾处他语音高扬。“分裂！”他喊道。“和平分裂！我和你们谁都不会见证它的发生，不可能有和平分裂。我们在一部伟大的宪法指导下生活，它会因分离而消逝吗？就像山上的雪在阳光下融化一样？“我们不要谈论分裂的可能性，不要对一个充满恐惧的想法进行辩论，不要活在这种黑暗的思想中。相反，让我们走出去，面对阳光，享受自由与团结的新鲜空气。”北方废奴主义者很快对丹尼尔·韦伯斯特的演讲大加指责，他们称他为叛徒。然而，大多数北方人接受韦伯斯特的折衷法案。他的演讲冷却了威胁南北之间完全破裂的辩论。
关于奴隶制的争论在美国仍在继续着，这终将会导致内战。但历史学家表示，韦伯斯特对1850年折衷法案的支持可能有助于推迟这场危机。丹尼尔·韦伯斯特的演讲并没有结束有关折衷法案的争辩。四天后，纽约州参议员威廉·西沃德站出来发言。西沃德说他反对向南方妥协，他不希望西部新的领地上有奴隶制存在。他敦促制定一项国家政策，以和平的方式结束各地的奴隶制。西沃德批评丹尼尔·韦伯斯特反对废除奴隶制。他说，这些团体代表了一场无法停止的道德运动。这场运动将持续下去，直到美国所有的奴隶都获得自由。随后，西沃德又批评了南卡罗来纳州的参议员约翰·C·卡尔霍恩。他谴责卡尔霍恩要求南北双方政治平衡。他说，这将使美国从统一的全国性民主国家变成一个独立的国家联盟。在这样一种体系中，少数人将能够否决多数人的行动。
许多立法者似乎支持克莱的折衷法案，但他们无法就先通过哪部分达成一致。南方的支持者担心，如果先通过加利福尼亚的州制法案，那么北方人将拒绝通过折衷法案中的其他部分。所以，南方人想把所有内容都包括在一个法案中。1850年3月的最后一天，约翰·C·卡尔霍恩去世，人们对折衷法案怀抱的希望与日俱增。卡尔霍恩支持奴隶制，他拒绝在这个问题上妥协。卡尔霍恩所在的南卡罗来纳州的一家报纸说：“参议员的去世对国家和他自己的名誉而言都是最好的，卡尔霍恩本会阻止和解。现在，奴隶制问题将得到解决。一个由13人组成的委员会被任命根据亨利·克莱的折衷法案起草一项法案，委员会有6名成员来自执行奴隶制的州，6名来自自由州。亨利·克莱被任命为该组织的领导人。三周后，委员会提交了该法案。它和克莱最初提交的折衷法案很相似。法案中将加利福尼亚州定为自由州，为新墨西哥州和犹他州创建领地政府，解决了德克萨斯州和新墨西哥州之间的边界争端，终结哥伦比亚特区的奴隶贸易，还敦促批准一项处理逃跑奴隶的新法律。大约一个月的时间，拟议中的法案似乎得到了总统扎卡里·泰勒政府的支持。但是，总统泰勒却明确表示，他将竭尽所能将其击败。这将是我们下周要讲述的故事。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
