Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-12-02


strous evil, yet the people to inct il upon
themselves II you do not deprive them of the power!
The objection to allowing the people to make their own
laws the people sure to do wrong If Won do not
restrain them Ask the Emperor of all the Rnssas why
he does not allow his people make their own laws and
he will tell you that they viii make bad laws il they had
chance. Ask any other despot earth and you viii
get similar reply The enemies Of republican institu-
tions every where justify their tyranny and desposm
upon the plea that the people certain to make bad
laws and to ruin themselves if they allowed to exer
else the right OF self government The point of differ
between the Abolonist and the supporters Of the
Nebraska bill is this They desire that the people Of the
Territories in matters concerning their local and docs
tic policy, should be governed by the laws made by the
Congress Of the United States without giving the people
who to be affected by those laws any vote or voice in
the awnaing power Where did they derive that prin
cple? George III. and the Tories OF the Revolution
claimed that the American Colonies in matters affecting
their domestic affairs and internal concernp should be
governed by laws made by the British Parliament with
out giving the Colonies any voice or aton in
Parliament Our revolutionary fathers, while they were
willing to acknowledge their allegiance to the imperial
Government in all things which related to foreign affairs
and imperial concern denied the right Of the Parliament
or of any other power on earth, to make laws for them
affecting their persons or property without their consent
freely given by representatives elected by themselves
The denial Of this right by the British Government to
the American Colonies produced the revolution which
resulted in the establishment Of Independence Every
battle of that years bloody struggle was fought in
defence Of the right Of the American Colonies to
their laws and establish their own domestic institu-
ons through their own local legislatures The Consti-
tuition OF the United States adopted for the purpose
OF preserving and main tanning the rights achieved by the
Revelation. The question arises shall the Congress
OF the United States enforce upon the people OF the Ter
ritores principle odous that the sgners Of the De-
claraton of Independence pledged its resistance their
yes their fortunes and their sacred honors ?? We stand
now where the patriots of the Revelation then stood
claiming for the people Of distant territories colonies
the right Of scfgoyernneDt in all things pertaining TO
their local and internal Our opponents stand
where the Tories of the Revelation stood denying that
right and claiming all power hem upon the preeuce
they are incapable of protecting themselves against
the injurious consequences Of their own acts The Abo-
onsts seek to themselves for this fsgrant vo
ation of the sacred right of upon the
ground that the people Of the Territories and new States
win certainly open the door the introduction slavery
If this assertion should prove true it will be pretend
ed that any free would thereby be deprived of his
liberty or that the number of slaves in the United States
would be Rcreased by the removal Of portion OF those
the east side of the Mississippi the country on the
west of that noble stream The only question is whether
slave shall be permitted to go into the Territories and
there remain with his SUCH be compeed to
remain of slavery where he now is The aues-
i ton whenever slaves should be permitted to SO uto
Territory is which affects the people of Territory
and else. If the people want them to come and
reside among them, who has right to ipterpose? But
does tho history OF the country sustain the position
sumed, that whether the people Of any State or Terri
tory allowed to do IS they please this question
they 20 decide in favor of the introduction Of
slaves? The class of men who hold the afirme
tive of this proposition asserted in 1S4S that unless Con-
grass nterposed and deprived the people Of California
the right to decide this question for themselves she would
become slave State. We then called upon to yic
late the great principle Of self-goyerpment upon the
ground that slavery would California and New
Mexico, and all the territory acquired by the treaty OF
peace with Mexico unless Congress should prohibit it by
the adoption Of the Wilmot proyiso the ordinance
i of '87.
They succeeded in operating upon the prejudces and
creduy Of the people until they procured legislative IN
strueons from every slaYehoding State, one
in favor Of the positive prohibition Of slavery Has the
result sustained these predictions? Congress did not
adopt the Wlmot provso; did not impose prohibition
of slavery did not deprive the pcope Of those Terrto
ries Of the right to decide for themselves The people
Of California, when perfectly free do they pleased
formed constitution prohibiting the introduction Of
slaves California; therefore, became free State
the bidding by the dctaton Of Congress- but under the
operation Of the principle of the Nebraska bill When
Utah and New Mexico organized the principle
was applied 10 them and they left free decide the
slavery question for themselves. Have they established
shyery The history Of the country for the last six years
has fasfed every prediction, exploded every theory ne
gatived every proposition urged by the Ahotonsts at
that days. yet in the face of these facts and in contempt
Of past experience they forward with the
theories and predictions, sustained by the same argu
4 ments and urged with much assurance and apparent
zeal if what they had predicted of California and the
Territories had proved true instead Of false Where,
then the beneficial results OF their abolition doctrine
which calls upon Congress to relieve the people from evils
which they arc supposed to be incapable OF averting
From what foot Of American soil have they drawn slavery
by Of Congress-? When the Constitution adopted
the Union consisted Of twelve slavehodipg States and
nonsayeholdng State Since that tine slavery has been
abolished in six of those twelve slnvehodng States
Was this accomplished by act of Congress- through the
mysterious instrumeuaty of the Wilmot proviso, the
/ ordinance Of 1857, or the Missouri restriction?
Slavery was Hampshire Rhode Island,
Connecticut New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
under the operation Of the principles Of the Nebraska BILL
which, under the Constitution Of tho United States leave
the people of each State free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way.
Where, then the triumphs of the Congressional in
reference and dctaon? The Aboitonst points to the
free institutions in Illinois and the other States formed
from the old Northwest Territory ard attributes these to-
the ordinance of 81 prohibiting slavery Is it true that
these States rejected slavery merely because ofan obsolete
ordinance which, Mr.. Madison informs u.s. was originally
passed without constitutional authority aud which the
Supreme Court Of the United States has decided to have
become void when the Constitution adopedP If so
how happens it that the people Of these States when
eved from the operation Of that ordnance by being
ceived into The Union upon equality with the original
States did adopt slavery? win be conteaded that
Illinois and each ether State formed ont of the North
western Territory has not the right establish
abolish introduce exclude slavery that Virginia or
Massachusetts, has under the Constitution do not
cognse the doctrine that there be inequality in
spec to the rights and powers Of the different States in
this Confederacy Each State is absolute sovereignty
in oil things where the Constitution Of the United States
has not imposed limitations, and whatever limitations
that instrument has placed upon any OF the States applies
with eeua force 20 each Of all the States, old and new
saveholdne and nonslayehoding. Nor is it competent
for Congress any other power, 80 long as the Const
tuition remains unchanged, impose limitation either
by the MANS c the Wiimot proyiso the ordinance of
ST. or the Missouri restriction, by any other
upon any new State either in the Union hereafter
to be admitted which the Constitution has not placed
| 80, ..a ~ Al