Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-10

what they call the Missouri compromise was the
main object and aim of the bill, and that the only
question involved is, whether the prohibition OF
slavery north Of SO deg. 80 min. shall be repeat
ed or not! That which is a mere incident they
choose to consider the principle. They make
war on the meuns by which we propose to accom-
Plish an object, instead of openly resisting the
object ITSELF The principle which we propose to
carry into effect by the bill is this: That Con-
Sress shall neither egislate slavery into any Terri
tories or State, nor out of The same; bat the people
shall be LOFT free TO regulate their domestic concerns
IN their oion soGy, subject only to the Constitution
of ths United States
In order to carry this principle into practical
/ operation, it becomes necessary to remove what
ever legal obstacles might be found in the way of
its free exercise. 1t is only for the purpose Of
carrying out this great fundamental principle of
self-government that the bill renders the eighth
section of the Missouri act imperative and void.
Now, let me ask, will these senators who have
arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assu-
rance to rise in his place and declare that this
great principle was never thought of or advoca-
ted applicable to territorial blls in 1850; that,
from that session until the present, nobody ever
thought of Incorporating this principle in all new
territorial organizations; that the Committee on
Territories did not recommend it in their report
and that it required the amendment of the sena-
tor from Kentucky to bring us up to that point!-
Will any one of my accusers dare to make this
issue, and let it be tried by the record Twill be-
gin with the compromises of 1850 ANY sena-
atOr who will take the trouble to examine our
journals will find that on the 25th of March of
that year reported from the Committee on Ter
ritories two bills including the following meas
ures: the admission of California, a territorial
government for Utah, territorial government
for New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Tex
as boundary. These bills proposed to leave the
people Of Utah and New Mexico free to decide
the slavery question for themselves, in the precise
language of the Nebraska bill no,c under discus
sion. A few weeks afterwards, the Committee
of Thirteen took those two bills and put a wa
! fer between them and reported them back to the
Senate as one bill, which some slight amend
ments. One of those amendments was, that the
territorial legislatures should not legisate upon
the subject of African slavery. | objected to
that provision upon the ground that it su5verted
the great principle OF selfgovernment upon
which the bill had been originally framed by the
Territorial Committee. On the first trial, the
Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently
did SO, after full debate, in order to establish
that principle as the rule of action in territorial
organizations
Mr.. DODGE, of Iowa. 1t was done on your own
motion.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Upon this point trust will
be excused for reading one or two sentences
from some remarks l made in the Senate on the
Sd of June 1850: .
"The position that have ever taken has been
that this the slavery question, and all other ques
tions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic
policy Of the Territories, ought to be left to the
decision of the people themselves, and that we
ought to be content with whutever way they
would decide the question, because they have a
much deeper interest in these matters than we
have, and know much better what institutions
will suit them, than we, who have never been
there, can decide for them.''
Again, in the same debate said;
81 do not see how those of us who have taken
the position which we have taken, Chat of nom
interference,) and have argued in favor of the
right of the people to legislate for themselves on
this question, can support such provision with
out abandoning all the arguments which we urg-
ed i'll the presidential campaign in the year l84S,
aud the principles set forth by the honorab e SEN
ator from Michigan in that letter which is known
as the Nicholson letter." We are required to
abandon that platform; we are required to aban-
don those principles, and to stultiiy ourselves,
and to adopt the opposite doctrine; and for what!
In order to say that the people of the Territories
shall not have such Institutions as they shall deem
adapted to their condition and their wants. | do
not see, sir, how such provision as that can be
acceptable either to the people OF the north or the
south"
Mr.. President could 60 on and multiply ex-
tract after extract from my speeches in $780, and
prior to that date, to show that this doctrine OF
leaving the people to decide these questions for
themselves is not an "after-thought'' with me,
| ca,1 fOr fha 6rst
caumniators have so frequently and boldly charg-
ed in their speeches during this debate, and in
their manifesto to the public. | refused to sup
port the celebrated omnibus bill in 1850 until the
obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the
principle of self-government restored, as it exist.
ed in my original bill. No sooner were the com.
promise measures of 1850 passed, than the abo-
ltion confederates, who lead the opposition to
this bill now, raised the cry of repeal in some
sections of the country, and in others, forcbe
resistance to the execution of the law. In Or
der to arrest and suppress the reasonable purpo-
ses of these abolition confederates, and avert the
horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the
23d OF October, 1850, to address an excited ant
frenzied multitude at Chicago, in defence Of each
and all of the compromise measures OF thai
year. | will read one or two sentences from tina
speech, to show how those measures were theI
understood and explained Dy tnelr adVocates
"These measures are predicated on the great fun
damental principle that every people ought to posses
the rightof forming and regulating their o,on IN
ternal concerns and domestic institutions in thei
opn toay.' a.a. r,.r a.,.. 81. ....,,..-..- ,.g,,
Again: .,.L
"These things are all confded by the Constitu
ton to each State to decide for ITSELF and knot
of no reason Whyths same principle should not b
Il co1fded To the Territories."
In this speech it will be seen that lay dowl
a general principle Of universal application, AM
make no distinction between territories north o
south Of 36 deg. 80 min.
/ am aware that some of the abolition confede
rates have perpetrated a monstrous forgery Of
that speech, and are now circulating through tn
abolition newspapers the statement that | sal
that would ceiling with the tenacity Of life t
the compromise Of 1890" This statement, fals'
as il is-a deliberate act of forpery, as it i