The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1854-08-26
0ttaha frte Traoer
OTTAWA, AUGUST 26, 1854.
pOpula, Sovereignty.

The Sangamon Journal, and other wing
and abolition papers Of that calbcr, are at
tempting to impose on the ignorance of their
readers by asserting that the Nebraska
Kansas bill does not give those territories
the right to exclude slavery, and as proof
quote the following amendment offered in
the house by Mr.. Fuller, an abolitionst
kora Maine:
"And the Territorial Legislatures shaI
have power to establish or exclude Slavery,
as to them shall seem proper"
Which amendment, say these papers, was
voted down by 81 to rs. Nobody can know
better how dishonest this argument is than
these editors. 1t is undoubtedly true that
such an amen tlment was offered and voted
down Bat why oifercd--why voted down?
It was offered when the house, at the end
Of the most extraordinary struggle that body
has ever witnessed, got back into committee
Of the whole. Having thus failed to arrest
the wheels Of government the wings and
abolitonists undertook to stavc off action by
offering amendments nd inyjatam, and sup
porting them by five minutes speeches.
The above was one OF about 800 similar
amendments offered under such circumstan-
ces. It was offered in factious spirit, in
bad faith, and was never expected or in
teD2ed to be adopted; and for the plain rea-
son, that the provision was already embraced
in the bill TO prove this single quotation
from the Kansas bill will suffice. The 32d
section declares,
"That it is the true intent and meaning
Of this act not to lcgislatc slavery into any
territory or state, or to exclude it thcrcrrom,
but to leave the people thereof PERFECT
LY FREE to form and regulate their d.lnes.
tic institutions in their own way"
How can the territories be said to be per
fccty free to regulate the institution of
slavery Sin their own way" if they are
denied the power to Establish or exclude
it?
There is another ,ursc of argument pur-
sued by the wing and abolitisn press and or
ators that is equally dishonest. They assert
that as the Missouri Compromise had '1Cr-
ever" excluded slavery from the territories
north Of $500, those territories when adj
mitted as states, would, but for its repeal.
have been debarred from the right to estab-
lish slavery within their borders. The mcr.
est tyro in states rights knows this asscr.
ton to be utterly falacious. The constitu.
tion says new states may from time to time
be admitted on an equal footing with the
older states In no part of that instrument
is the slightest distinction made between the
old and new states. Is it claimed that con.
gsess can prohibit slavery in Pennsylvania
should that state choose to re-establsh the
institution? And has Pennsylvania rights
which Kansas would not have as a state !:
Would that be placing Kansas on an equal
footing with Pennsylvania?
The whole effect Of the repeal of the Ne
braska bill is to give the people of the terri
tories of Kansas power which many emf
nent jurists believe they possess already,
and which no candid man denies they will
not possess when they come to be admitted
as a state,-at farthost in four or five years.
The Missouri Compromise was but half re-.
pcaled. The law admitting Missouri into
the Union abrogated the old Louisiana law
which made all that country slave territory.
The Kansas Nebraska bill restirms that alb.
rogation. But at the same time it also es-
tablishes great principles principle con-
tended for by the wings and aboIitionists at
the admission Of California and New Mexico,
but repudiated by them a. the organization
efkansas and Nebraska. That principle is
the right Of the people to regulate their local
institutions Sin their own way" But FOR the
adoption of such principle applicable to
all territories admitted or to be admitted
the nation, at the organization Of every new
territory would be conyulscd b. new slave
ry agitation, fraught at each successive re-
newal, with increased danger to the pcrpet.
uity of the Union. The Nebraska principle
will remove this apple Of dscord from the
walls of congress, and turn over the qucs-
ton to those who eventually must at all
events decide il for themselves. It was re
marked by Jefferson, we believe in his first
message to congress on this very subject of
states rights and popular sovereignty, how
happily it undcrlics our whole governmental
system. Politicians may wrangle in the
halls of congress and threaten ciyil war and
disunion, but in the end the conservative,
reliable good sense Of the people of the states
will quietly and peaceably settle every ques,
ton in their own way at the ballot boxes.
And so, in spite of abolition noise or blus-
ter will the people of Kansas and Nebraska
settle this slavery question, and their dccs-
ION will DC right