Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1854-08-24

| tnaI tney invoked the lnterpOSltlOn OF heaven
and accepted the preferred aid of the generous
| stranger. For seven long years did they
| labor to impress upon Lord North and George
LII, the virtue and power of this great funda-
| mental truth in the science of government.
The attempt of that monarch to ''bind the
Colonies in all things whatsoever" and to
| impose taxes without representation, gave
| this principle growth and vigor, and cost him
armies and an empire. Since that day to the
present time it has been gaining strength in
all civilized countries American experience
has fully solved and settled the problem of
mans ability for self government Where
can be found the instance in which govern
mental affairs have been submitted to, or in
trusted with the people, that the results have
not been salutary? Who Will then at this
day doubt the fitness of the American people
to dispose of any question of governmental
policy found within the limits of the Constitu-
ton? Who will contend for the absurd idea,
that a man loses his capacity for self govern
ment by emigrating from state to a terrific
ry? Who will say that man residing in
Massachusetts, should, through his represen-
tatives in Congress, be permitted to adopt and
regulate institutions of local government for
his fellow man in Utah, New Mexico, Mime
sofa, Nebraska or Kansas? ? VIII our Whig
or Abolition friends agree that when they
shall have emigrated to any of these terrific
ries their Democratic tellow-citizens whom
they leave behind shall decide for them what
kind of local institutions they shall have =
that their Judgment and not that of the emf
grants themselves shall control as to the in
stitution of Slavery? Or who will contend
that the people will be careless of their own
true interests THAT their government will
be feeble or injudicious? Whoever says these
things doubts all the principles of our republi-
can institutions, and disregards the lessons of
experience and the teachings of the sages of
the revolution.
We have already intinated, that we will
not discuss the abstract and difficult questions
of Congressional power, which have grown
out of the slavery controversy, in the Halls of
the National Legislature We care not to
decide, where so many have differed, whether
Congre has the power to establish or abolish
the institution in the territories Be that as
it may, we assert that it was wise in 1850,
as in 1854, to refer the whole question to the
sove. e On will of the people, to be settled
through the action of the local governments,
as all other questions of domestic policy are
settled The rights of property, the relations
between husband and wife, parent and child,
guardian and ward, are so confded, and we
can conceive none more sacred and important
in the social state, and we see of no good
reason why the question of domestic slavery,
the relation of master and servant, should
alone be withheld from the action of the
people.
It must not be forgotten, that we have not
the creation of circumstances for ourselves.
but that we must deal with existing facts The
same difficulty occurred in the early history
of the country. We had the institution of
slavery entailed upon us, and the only matter
of enquiry has long been, how it was to be
managed to the greatest advantage of both
the white and black races. The latter number
several millions, and we are forced to the di-
lemma of retaining large portion of them
in bondage or make them our companions
and equals, and permit them to share the
honors of the State, and intermarry with our
daughters and friends. In the forcible Ian
guaec of Mr. Jefferson, '.we have the wolf
iy the ears, and we can neither hold him nor
safely let him GO"
And yet much has been done in legal and
constitutional way for the amelioration of this
unfortunate race of people The men OF the
revolution had to deal with the institution of
slavery as they found it, and they so acted in
the formation of the government. When
these States were colonies OF Great Britain,
every one was slave-holding province. At
out of the thirteen were slave-holding States.
Six of the original thirteen have now become
free, not by abolition agitation in Congress,
but by the action of the people of the several
States in their sovereign capacity at home.
This leaving the question to the people was
first adopted by Congress in 1850, and was
intended to be general in It's application to all
territories thereafter to be organized it
was to be a finality as to the principle to be
invoked, but not finality as to its application
ries were to be organized This position is
sustained by the fact that in forming the
boundaries of Utah and New Mexico, no re-
spect seems to have been paid to the act of
1920. fixing what is termed the Missouri line,
nor the act of 1S45, extending that line to
the Rio Del Norte. The larger portion of ter
ritory included in these acts of organization
was taken from the Mexican acquisition, but
they include also portion of theTexas terrific
ry north of 36 deg. 30 min., and part of the
Louisiana purchase, which was covered by
that line This territory was taken from un-
der the act of 1920, interdicting slavery,
north of 36 deg. 80 min, and subjected to
the action of the principles of the Compromise
of 1850, that the territory thus embraced
should be admitted into the Union as States
with or without slavery the people thereof
might determine These facts are claimed as
a predecent for the act organizing Nebraska
and Kansas.
1t is for'these reasons and in this sense also,
claimed that the principles of ofnon-intervention
as adopted in 1850 should be regarded as
finality
AS Pennsylvanians we are not the advocates