Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

It was this:

"Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England to ship men to Kansas-ROWDIES AND VAGABONDS-with the Bible in one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, TO SHOT DOWN THE FRIENDS OF FREE INSTITUTIONS AND SELF GOVERNMENT. Popular sover ignty in Kansas was stricken down by the combinations in the Northern States to carry elections under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed aid societies, too; and she, following your example, sent men into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. I condemn both, but I condemn A THOUSAND FOLD MORE those that set the example and struck the first blow than those who thought they would act on the principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons,

review of Mr. Doug'as' many crimes against | freedom in Kansas, says: It is gratifying, however, to make a single remark in his favor; it is this: that he seems as willing as the most ardent of his friends to divert attention from this period of his career. I am not aware that, in either essay or a dress he has ventured to recur to it; but on the contrary, he seems disposed to treat as a blink in his life. Mr. Hickman has overlooked Mr. Douglas' speech in the Senate on the 29th of February last, when he repeated the most offen-ive and disreputable thing he ever said and resorted to the same means that you have emconcerning the civil war in that Territory.ployed."--Cong. Globe, 1859-60, page 916.

[ocr errors]

PART III.-MISCELLANEOUS.

MR. DOUGLAS BELIEVES IN THE HIGHER LAW.

In his Chicago speech of October 23d, 1850, in defense of the Fugitive Slave Law, Mr. Douglas said:

"The general proposition that there is a law PARAMOUNT TO ALL HUMAN ENACTMENTS-the law of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe-I TRUST THAT NO CIVILIZ D AND CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IS PREPARED TO QUESTION, MUCH LESS DENY. We should recognize, respect and revere the the Divine law."-Sheahan's Life of Douglas; page 184.

It is true that Mr. Douglas went on to argue that the Divine law does not prescribe the forms of human government, but all his subsequent logic is not a match for the plain, unequivocal statement here giver that "there is a law paramount to all human enactments!"

HE DON'T CARE WHETHER SLAVERY IS VOTED
DOWN OR VOTED UP.

It was with this epigramma ic phrase that
Mr. Douglas signalized his objection to the
Lecompton Constitution on the 9th of Decem-
ber, 1857, when he sp ke as follow:

"But I am told on all sides; 'oh! just walt; the pro-slavery clause will be voted down.' That does not obviate any of my obligations; it does not diminish any of them. You have no more right to force a Free State Constitution on Kansas than a Slave State Constitution. If Kansas wants a Slave State Constitution, she has a right to it; if she wants a Free State Constitution, she has a right to it. It is none of my business which way the slavery clause is decided. I CARE

NOT WHETHER IT IS VOTED DOWN OR VOTED
UP."-Cong. Globe, 1857-58, part 1, page 18.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

In his copyright essay published in Harper's Magazine last year, Mr. Douglas substantially admits the Republican doctrine concerning the relation of Congress to the Ter itories, by saying:

"It. [sovereignty] can only be exercised WHERE THERE ARE INHABITANTS SUFFICIENT TO CON

STITUTE A GOVERNMENT, AND CAPABLE OF

PERFORMING ITS VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND
DUTIES-A FACT TO BE ASCERTAINED AND
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS. WHETHER
THE NUMBER SHALL BE FIXED AT TEN, FIF-
TEEN OR TWENTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS,
DOES NOT AFFECT THE PRINCIPLE."

If the number may be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabita t, it may of

course be fixed at one hundred thousand or any other number sufficient to cons.itute a State.

[blocks in formation]

In a colloquy with Senators Davis and Gwin, in the Senate, on the 17th of May, 1860, Mr. Douglas utterly repudiated squatter sovereignty," in the following words:

invented by the Seator and those with whom he acts,

"Regarding Squatter Sovereignty as a nickname

which I have never recognized, I must leave him to define the meaning of his own term. I have denounced Squatter Sovereignty when you find it setting up a government in violation of law, as you do now at Pike's Peak. I denounced it this year. When you find an unauthorized Legislature, in violation of law, se ting up a government without sanction of Congress or Court, that is Squatter Sovereignty which I oppose. There is the case of Dakotah, where you have left a whole people without any law or Territorial organization, with no mode of appeal from Squatter Courts to that is Squatter Sovereignty in violation of the Constithe United States Courts to correct their d'cisionstution and laws of the United States. There is a similar government set up over a part of California and a part of the Territory of Utah, called Nevada.

It is in material whether we take this phrase as an expression of Mr. Douglas' opinions on the abstract question of slavery, or as a definition of the views which he seeks to impress upon his followers as a leader of the Democratic party, and to incorporate in the legislation of the country as a Senator and a statesman. Yet if there is any moral difference between the two ideas, it is, doubtless, in favor of the former. As an individual he may deem slavery as good a thing as freedom, without exercising any wide-spread influence for harm. As a Senator, he cannot vote that slavery is as good as fre dom, without stamping the legislation of his country with that baleful idea. As the leader of a numerou party, he cannot instil in his followers the principle that they ought not to care whether sla-ple of a Territory, when they have become organized under the Constitution and laws, have legislative power very be voted down or voted up, without over all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with

"It has a delegate here. claiming to represent it. I

have denounced that as unlawful. I am opposed to all such Squatter Sovereignty. If that is whit the SenaAll I say is, the peotor referred to, I am against it.

the Constitution of the United States. That is the language of the law, and if they exercise legislative powers on any subject inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the Courts, to whom appeal may be taken under the laws, will correct their errors. That is all. -Cong. Globe, 1859-60; page, 2147.

HR REPUDIATES TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, ALSO.

The fol owing extract from Mr. Douglas' letter in reply to Judge Black's criticism on his Harper's Magazine Essay, puts everything at sixes and sevens again as regards his views of the sovereignty which belongs to the people of a Territory. In that letter he says:

"I have never said or thought that our Territories were sovereign political communities, or even limited Sovereignties like the States of this Union."

And again, in a colloquy with Mr. Clay, of Alabama, in the Senate, February 23d, 1859, he was still more explicit in denying sovereignty to the Territories:

"I will answer the Senator's question. First-I do not hold that squatter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution. I HOLD THAT NO SUCH THING AS SOVEREIGN POWER ATTACHES TO A TERRI

TORY WHILE A TERRITORY. I hold that a Terri

tory possesses whatever power it derives from the Constitution, under the organic act, and no more. I hold that ALL the power that a Territorial Legislature possesses is derived from the Constitution and is amendments, under the act of Congress; and because I held that, I denied last year that the people of a Territory, without the consent of Congress, could assemble at Lecompton and create an organic law for that people. I denied the validity of your Lecompton Constitution, for the reason that constitutions can only be made by sovereign power; and because the Territory was not a sovereignty, that was not a constitution but a petition."-Cong. Globe, 1858-59, part 2, page 1246.

THER IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO INTO A TERRI TORY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE LAWFUL MEAN TO INTRODUCE IT OR EXCLUDE IT AS THEY PLEASE, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, un less it is supported by police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legis lature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect represe tatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduc tion of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, NO MATTER WHAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE on that abstract Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete question, still the right of the people to make a slave under the Nebraska bill.. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point."-Lincoln and Douglas Debates, page 95.

Let the reader contrast these utterances with the Wickliffe resolution, adopted by the Douglas National Convention, and Mr. Douglas' letter of acceptance, (page 7, ante).

A QUESTION WHICH HE WILL NOT ANSWER.

In his colloquy with Mr. Davis, in the Senate, May 17th, 1860, Mr Douglus refused to answer the question whether he would or would not sign a bill to protect slave proper ty in the Territories, if he were President of the United States. This is a question which has an immediate and special significance, and one which each voter has a right to put to Mr. Douglas and every other candidate for President or Vice-President. Fortunately we have Mr. Douglas' reply, or his refusal to reply on record. The colloquy was as follows:

"MR. DAVIS-If it will not embarass the Senator, I would ask him, if, as Chief Executive of the United States, he would sign a bill to protect slave property in State, Territory or District of Columbia--an act of Con

gress.

"MR. DOUGLAS-It will be time enough for me or any

other man to say what bills he will sign when he is in a dele-position to execute the power.

It will be noticed, also, that in these remarks, Mr. Douglas supplied a link hitherto missing in the chain which binds him to the Dred Scott decision. It is this: the Supreme Court say that whereas Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territory, it cannot gate such power to a Territorial Legislature. Mr. Douglas steps in at this point and says that ALL the powers vested in a Territory are derived through the act of Congress organizing it. They have no powers that are not so derived. Hence if Congress cannot prohibit slavery in a Territory, neither can the people of the Territory do so by any means whatever.

UNFRIENDLY LEGISLATION.

[ocr errors]

"MR. DAVIS-I shall not ask you a question further than you wish to answer-certainly not. he pleases, and I shall answer them when I please; but I was going to say that I do not recognize the right to catechise me in this way. The Senator has no right to do it after sneering at my pretensions to the place which he assumes that I desire to occupy.

MR. DOUGLAS-The Senator can ask all the questions

"MR. DAVIS-I grant the Senator the right not to answer the question, though it seemed to me to be leading very directly up to an exact understanding between us as to what he meant by non-intervention. I, however, will not press that, or any other question, against his wishes."-Cong. Globe, 1859-60; puge, 2147.

NATIONAL CREEDS.

The doctrine of "unfriendly legislation against the rights of property, as declared by MR. DOUGLAS' VIEWS OF NATIONAL PARTIES AND the Dred Scott decision, was promulgated by Mr. Douglas in his debate with Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, on the 23th of August, 1858, as follows:

The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a Constitution? I answer emphatically,

as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times

from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the

the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a

State Constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. IT MATTERS NOT WHAT WAY THE SUPREME COURT MAY HEREAFTER DECIDE AS TO THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHE

to

Since Mr. Herschel V. Johnson has been hooted down by a mob in his own State, and since the creed of the Douglas party has been tabooed in at least one-third of the States of Union, it will be interesting to all persons learn the views of nationality entertained by Mr. Douglas himself; and it is difficult to find a broader joke with which to conclude this pleasing compilation. We close by quoting from his speech at Cincinnati, on the 9th of September, 1859, as reported in the New York Times of Sept. 12th:

"ANY POLITICAL CREED IS RADICALLY WRONG WHICH CANNOT BE PROCLAIMED IN THE SAME FORM WHEREVER THE AMERICAN FLAG WAVES OR THE AMERICAN CONSTITU TION RULES."

review of Mr. Doug'as' many crimes against freedom in Kansas, says: It is gratifying, however, to make a single remark in his favor; it is this: that he seems as willing as the most ardent of his friends to divert attention from this period of his career. I am not aware that, in either essay or address he has ventured to recur to it; but on the contrary, he seems disposed to treat as a blink in his life." Mr. Hickman has overlooked Mr. Douglas' speech in the Senate on the 29th of February last, when he repeated the most offensive and disreputable thing he ever said concerning the civil war in that Territory.

| It was this:

"Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England to ship men to Kansas-ROWDIES AND VAGABONDS-with the Bible in one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, TO SHOT DOWN THE FRIENDS OF FREE INSTITUTIONS AND SELF GOVERNMENT. Popular sover ignty in Kansas was stricken down by the combinations in the Northern States to carry elections under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed aid societies, too; and she, following your example, sent men into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. I condemn both, but I condemn A TH USAND FOLD MORE those that set the example and struck the first blow than those who thought they woult act on the principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, ployed."--Cong. Globe, 1859-60, page 916.

and resorted to the same means that you have em

PART III.-MISCELLANEOUS.

MR. DOUGLAS BELIEVES IN THE HIGHER LAW.

In his Chicago speech of October 23d, 1850, in defense of the Fugitive Slave Law, Mr. Douglas said:

"The general proposition that there is a law PARAMOUNT TO ALL HUMAN ENACTMENTS-the law of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe-I TRUST THAT NO CIVILIZ D AND CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IS PREPARED TO QUESTION, MUCH LESS DENY. We should recognize, respect and revere the the Divine law."-Sheahan's Life of Douglas; page 184.

It is true that Mr. Douglas went on to argue that the Divine law does not prescribe the forms of human government, but all his subsequent logic is not a match for the plain, unequivocal statement here given that "there is a law paramount to all human enactments!"

HE DON'T CARE WHETHER SLAVERY IS VOTED
DOWN OR VOTED UP.

It was with this epigramma ic phrase that
Mr. Douglas signalized his objection to the
Lecompton Constitution on the 9th of Decem-
ber, 1857, when he sp ke as follows:

"But I am told on all sides; 'oh! just walt; the pro-slavery clause will be voted down.' That does not obviate any of my obligations; it does not diminish any of them. You have no more right to force a Free State Constitution on Kansas than a Slave State Constitution. If Kansas wants a Slave State Constitution, she has a right to it; if she wants a Free State Constitution, she has a right to it. It is none of my business which way the slavery clause is decided. ICARE NOT WHETHER IT IS VOTED DOWN OR VOTED UP."-Cong. Globe, 1857-58, part 1, page 18.

man.

It is in material whether we take this phrase as an expression of Mr. Douglas' opinions on the abstract question of slavery, or as a definition of the views which he seeks to impress upon his followers as a leader of the Democratic party, and to incorporate in the legislation of the country as a Senator and a statesYet if there is any moral difference between the two ideas, it is, doubtless, in favor of the former. As an individual he may deem slavery as good a thing as freedom, without exercising any wide-spread influence for harm. As a Senator, he cannot vote that slavery is as good as fre dom, without stamping the legislation of his country with that baleful idea. As the leader of a numerous party, he cannot instil in his followers the principle that they ought not to care whether very be voted down or voted up, without

[blocks in formation]

In his copyright essay published in Harper's Magazine last year, Mr. Douglas substantially admits the Republican doctrine concerning the relation of Congress to the Ter itories, by saying:

"It. [sovereignty] can only be exercised WHERE THERE ARE INHABITANTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A GOVERNMENT, AND CAPABLE OF

PERFORMING ITS VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND
DUTIES-A FACT TO BE ASCERTAINED AND
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS. WHETHER
THE NUMBER SHALL BE FIXED AT TEN, FIF-
TEEN OR TWENTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS,
DOES NOT AFFECT THE PRINCIPLE."

If the number may be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabita t, it may of course be fixed at one hundred thousand or any other number sufficient to cons.itute a State.

[blocks in formation]

In a colloquy with Senators Davis and Gwin, in the Senate, on the 17th of May, 1860, Mr. Douglas utterly repudiated "squatter sovereignty," in the following words:

invented by the Seator and those with whom he acts,

"Regarding Squatter Sovereignty as a nickname

which I have never recognized, I must leave him to define the meaning of his own term. I have denounced Squatter Sovereignty when you find it setting up a

government in violation of law, as you do now at Pike's Peak. I denounced it this year. unauthorized Legislature, in violation of law, se ting When you find an up a government without sanction of Congress or Court, that is Squatter Sovereignty which I oppose. There whole people without any law or Territorial organizais the case of Dakotah, where you have left a tion, with no mode of appeal from squatter Courts to the United States Courts to correct their d'cisionstution and laws of the United States. There is a simithat is Squatter Sovereignty in violation of the Constilar government set up over a part of California and a part of the Territory of Utah, called Nevada. have denounced that as unlawful. "It has a delegate here, claiming to represent it. I such Squatter Sovereignty. If that is what the SenaI am opposed to all tor referred to, I am against it. All I say is, the peosla-ple of a Territory, when they have become organized over all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with under the Constitution and laws, have legislative power

the Constitution of the United States. That is the language of the law, and if they exercise legislative powers on any subject inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the Courts, to whom appeal may be taken under the laws, will correct their errors. That is all. -Cong. Globe, 1859-60; page, 2147.

HE REPUDIATES TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, ALSO.

The folowing extract from Mr. Douglas' letter in reply to Judge Black's criticism on his Harper's Magazine Essay, puts everything at sixes and sevens again as regards his views of the sovereignty which belongs to the people of a Territory. In that letter he says:

"I have never said or thought that our Territories were sovereign olitical communities, or even limited Sovereignties like the States of this Union."

And again, in a colloquy with Mr. Clay, of Alabama, in the Senate, February 23d, 1859, he was still more explicit in denying sovereignty to the Territories:

"I will answer the Senator's question. First-I do not hold that squatter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution. I HOLD THAT NO SUCH THING AS

SOVEREIGN POWER ATTACHES TO A TERRI

TORY WHILE A TERRITORY. I hold that a Territory possesses whatever power it derives from the Constitution, under the organic act, and no more. I hold that ALL the power that a Territorial Legislature possesses is derived from the Constitution and is amendments, under the act of Congress; and because I held that, I denied last year that the people of a Territory, without the consent of Congress, could assemble at Lecompton and create an organic law for that people. I denied the validity of your Lecompton Constitution, for the reason

that constitutions can only be made by sovereign power;

and because the Territory was not a sovereignty, that was not a constitution but a petition."-Cong. Globe, 1858-59, part 2, page 1246.

pro

It will be noticed, also, that in these remarks, Mr. Douglas supplied a link hitherto missing in the chin which binds him to the Dred Scott decision. It is this: the Supreme Court say that whereas Congress cannot hibit slavery in the Territory, it cannot delegate such power to a Territorial Legislature. Mr. Douglas steps in at this point and says that ALL the powers vested in a Territory are derived through the act of Congress organizing it. They have no powers that are not so derived. Hence if Congress cannot prohibit slavery in a Territory, neither can the people of the Territory do so by any means whatever.

UNFRIENDLY LEGISLATION.

The doctrine of "unfriendly legislation" against the rights of property, as declared by the Dred Scott decision, was promulgated by Mr. Douglas in his debate with Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, on the 23th of August, 1858, as follows:

The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a Constitution? I answer emphatically,

as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times

from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. IT MATTERS NOT WHAT WAY THE SUPREME COURT MAY HEREAFTER DECIDE AS TO THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHE

THER IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO INTO A TERRI. TORY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE LAWFUL MEAN TO INTRODUCE IT OR EXCLUDE IT AS THEY PLEASE, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, un less it is supported by police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legis. lature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect represe tatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduc are for it, their, legislation will favor its extension. Hence, NO MATTER WHAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE on that abstract Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete question, still the right of the people to make a slave under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point."-Lincoln and Douglas Debates, page 95.

tion of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they

Let the reader contrast these utterances with the Wickliffe resolution, adopted by the Douglas National Convention, and Mr. Douglas' letter of acceptance, (page 7, ante).

A QUESTION WHICH HE WILL NOT ANSWER. In his colloquy with Mr. Davis, in the Senate, May 17th, 1860, Mr. Douglus refused to answer the question whether he would or would not sign a bill to protect slave property in the Territories, if he were President of the United States. This is a question which has an immediate and special significance, and one which each voter has a right to put to Mr. Douglas and every other candidate for President or Vice-President. have Mr. Douglas' reply, or his refusal to Fortunately we reply on record. The colloquy was as follows:

"MR. DAVIS-If it will not embarass the Senator, I would ask him, if, as Chief Executive of the United States, he would sign a bill to protect slave property in State, Territory or District of Columbia--an act of Con

gress.

"MR. DOUGLAS--It will be time enough for me or any other man to say what bills he will sign when he is in a

position to execute the power.

"MR. DAVIS-I shall not ask you a question further than you wish to answer-certainly not. he pleases, and I shall answer them when I please; but

MR. DOUGLAS-The Senator can ask all the questions

I was going to say that I do not recognize the right to catechise me in this way. The Senator has no right to do it after snee-ing at my pretensions to the place which he assumes that 1 desire to occupy.

"MR. DAVIS-I grant the Senator the right not to an swer the question, though it seemed to me to be leading very directly up to an exact understanding between us as to what he meant by non-intervention. I, however, will not press that, or any other question, against his wishes."-Cong. Globe, 1859-60; puge, 2147.

MR. DOUGLAS' VIEWS OF NATIONAL PARTIES AND

NATIONAL CREEDS.

Since Mr. Herschel V. Johnson has been hooted down by a mob in his own State, and since the creed of the Douglas party has been tabooed in at least one-third of the States of Union, it will be interesting to all persons to learn the views of nationality entertained by Mr. Douglas himself; and it is difficult to find a broader joke with which to conclude this pleasing compilation. We close by quoting from his speech at Cincinnati, on the 9th of September, 1859, as reported in the New York Times of Sept. 12th:

"ANY POLITICAL CREED IS RADICALLY WRONG WHICH CANNOT BE PROCLAIMED IN THE SAME FORM WHEREVER THE AMERICAN FLAG WAVES OR THE AMERICAN CONSTITU TION RULES."

TERMS-$10 PER THOUSAND.-Address, with Cash,

1860, Seft. 24. Gy?

RICKER & CROCKETT, Publishers, Boston, Mass.
Sami. A. Green, M.D., of Boston.
Hill. 1851.).

THE HOUR AND THE MAN.
Javor of Ficht. Zouglas for 13 widente

It is fortunate for the country, that, in the midst of a political crisis like the present, the great issues are so distinctly made up that no man need misunderstand them. The whole excitement is about the political relations to the general government of the Negro Question; it has been fanned into a flame by the persistent discussions and harangues of public men, North and South, and will not permit the attention of the country to be turned to any legitimate topic of legislation until it has first been allayed.

There are two ultra, extreme, and fanatical parties to this question, which is the reason why it has become so threatening in its aspects: the Republicans of the North, declaring their fixed determination to keep Slavery out of the common Territories by Congressional legislation, and by such legislation only, although the highest judicial tribunal of the country has declared that Congress possesses no such prohibitory authority, and although they know very well, too, that no such legislation is possible; and the Disunionists of the South insisting, on their side, that Congress shall pass laws to protect slave property in the Territories, after it is taken into them, on the admitted ground that without such positive protection by law Slavery could not exist. The first party would legislate Slavery out of the Territories, the second party would legislate it in. And this is the whole cause and origin of the present excitement, which threatens to engulf every thing which the human race holds precious, in general ruin. It is plain enough that between these two extremes, each of which has gained such ominous strength and magnitude, there can be no common understanding. Each professes to have drawn the sword and thrown away the scabbard. It is likewise just as plain that a safe and constitutional course for the great body of the people, in this emergency, must lie in neither one path nor the other, but somewhere between them, and, as it happens, in a plain and well-understood measure to which each extreme has already once agreed.

The Compromises of 1850 were solemnly subscribed to, after long and patient discussion, by the oldest and wisest statesmen of the time. On their basis, it was agreed that, for the future, all legislation by Congress respecting the status of slavery in the Territories should be abandoned; the entire subject was to be remanded to the people of the Territories for their determination, who, being on the ground and most immediately interested, would be likely to know what they really wanted much better than members of Congress in Washington could know for them. To this pacific, fair, and sensible plan, the whole country in turn assented in

[ocr errors]

1852, and the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska were organized on the same basis in 1854. Subsequently, in 1857, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion which all citizens alike concur in and accept, that slaveholders can emigrate with their slaves to the Territories, for all the power Congress had to free the latter when there, and, of course, leaving it with the inhabitants of the Territories, through their legislatures, to extend the local protection such peculiar property requires, or to refuse it that protection altogether. Thus, then, were these two points adjusted and understood by the country: first, that slaveholders might take their slaves with them into the Territories, if they chose; but, second, that they must look to the people there to give slaves a local property value, or their peculiar claims to them were not assured: and it is solely upon these points that the party occupying a safe constitutional ground between the extremists of the North and South has taken its stand in the present campaign and crisis.

The position of that party, therefore, is just this: the People of the Territories are alone to say whether Slavery shall exist as an institution among them, or not; and, constitutionally, they will say so, while yet in a Territorial condition, either by enacting positive local laws for its protection, or by refusing to enact such laws at all. Without such protective legislation, it is conceded on all sides, North and South, that it can have no existence. In this way the dangerous agitation is taken out of Congress, and the whole matter left, for the people themselves to settle, on a strict constitutional basis. For if the settlers, from considerations based on climate and soil, believe that negro labor is likely to be for their interest, it is manifestly proper that they should assume the responsibility of establishing it as a system; but if, on the other hand, they are averse to such a system, whether from moral reasons, or from motives of interest, or both,-they will fail to extend to it that protection without which it can have no certain existence in any locality whatever. And they who choose to take property of so purely local a character with them into the common Territories, will do it with the knowledge beforehand that if enough others of the inhabitants are not of their own mind, they cannot demand, or expect, the passage of such laws as that sort of property requires for an existence.

Nothing is more easy than for moralists, who. are apt to go off at half-cock, to declaim against the justice and righteousness of such a position in political matters; but until they can themselves furnish a fairer, better, and, all the while, more practical policy, based, too, on

« ZurückWeiter »