Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-09-18
The Republican Platform.

The striking similarity of the leading arti-
Gle in the Black Republican creed, to the
old Tory doctrine contended for, under the
reign Of George the Third, is not, perhaps,
so generally known as it ought to be. Ger
tain it is, that the broad assumption that
Congress has sovereign power over the Ter
ritories of the United States for their gov
eminent, is not one that will bear the test of
investigation, or one that will soon receive
the sanction of the American people. 1t
was the assumption of that principle that
drove the colonies to a separation from the
British Government. 1t was resisted by
the colonies, and has since been virtually re-
pudiated by the American people whenever
it has been attempted TO be enforced. AS
proof Of the fact, we call attention to the
following record which we find in the Day
ton Empire:
The British Parliament contended for the
absolute power Tor, in the words of the Repub-
lican platform, its Sovereign power, over the
inhabitants of the British TerrItories-and in
March, l766, the following declaratory resolu-
ton passed the House of Commons, the House
of Lords, and received the royal signature:
"ResoIued, That the Kings Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of lords spiritual
and lords temporal, and commons Of Great
Britain, In parliament assembled, had, hath
and of right ought to have full power and
authority to make laws aud statutes Of sufficient
force aud validity to bind the colonies and
people of America, subjects of the crown Of
Great Britain. in all cases whatsoever"
This was the English Tory doctrine directly
antagonistic to the principles laid down by our
ancestors Now compare this doctrine with the
third resolution Of the Republican platform,
the chief plank in it. 1t reads:
''ReS0loed, That the Constitution cOnfers
upon Congress sovereign power over the terri.
tories of the United States for their government,
and that in the exercise of this power, it is
both the right and imperative duty of Congress
to prohibit in the territories those twin relics OF
barbarism, poligamy and slavery"
The resolution contains, i'll substance, the
precise doctrine Of the English Tory resolution
Just quoted. Let any one make the comparison.
He has only TO change the names to make it
identically the same. The Tory ministry of
George III claimed in l776 for the British Con-
gress, sovereign power over our ancestors, The
inhabitants of the British territories. The
power for an American Congress over our breth-
rem in the American territories.
But let US search history further. After
multitude of contentious upon the respective
rights of the mother country and the colonies,
Congress was called "to state their rights" -
1t assembled in Philadelphia. And on the
18th of October, l774, the members of this gen.
eral Congress declared with unexampled una
nimity:
/. That they are entitled to life, liberty and
prosperity and they never ceded to any for
eign power whatever rightto dispose of either
without their consent"
2. THAT our ancestors, who first settled these
colonies. were, at the time of their emigration
from the mother country, entitled to all the
rights, liberties, and lmmunities OF free and
natural born subjects, within the realm of Eng
land"
3. "That by such emigration, they have by
no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of
those rights, but that they were, and their de-
scendants now are, entitled to the exercise and
enjoyment of all such of them, as their local
aud other circumstances, enabled them 10 exer-
else and enjoy e..
| A. " That the foundation of English liberty
and of all free governments, is right in the
people TO participate in their legislative council
and, the English colonsts are not represent
| ed, and from their local and other circumstan-
ces, cannot properly be represented in the
| British Parliament, they are entitled TO free
and exclusive power of legislation, in their sew
eral provincial legislatures, where their right
of representation can alone be preserved in all
cases of taxation and internal policy. subject
only TO the negative OF their sovereign in such
a manner as has been heretofore used and &C
customed."-Phkin's u. S. Vol. 1888.
Now we adopt this declaration of rights by
our ancestors, as our argument in favor of the
Democratic policy in the question of territorial
| governments. IL Is Onr argument in favor OF
the doctrine Of on-interyention. We will
| adopt it as our platform.
We say that our brethren who emigrate TO
Kansas or our other Territories, lose none oil
their rights, privileges or franchises by so do
ing; that if they possess the power. las republi
cans, of regulating their own domestic affairs
in the States, they possess it in the Territories
that if they make their own laws in the States
they can make them in the Territories; and il
they have a right to decide upon the question
of slavery in the States, they can pass upon il
in the Territories. And we say, in addition
lin almost the identical words of our ancestors
that it is the foundation Of American liberty
and of all free governments that the people
have right to participate in their legislative
council; and that fthey are not represented in
Congress or in the Federal Government, the
/
and exclusive power oflegIslation, in their sew
eral Territories Legislatures, where they are rep
resented, in all cases of internal and domestic
policy. Let US pause here to inquire if the peo-
pie OF Kansas and of our national Territories
are represented in the Federal Government
The people of the States vote for the members
of the Senate, and for the President. But the
people of the Territories have no such privi-
ges. They have no United States Senator;
their delegate to Congress has no vote; they
have no vote for President, who signs the laws
passed by both Houses. Is it not monarchial
and anti republican to claim that the people OF
these Territories shall be under the sovereign
power of Congress-" when they have no voice
in electing their Congress? Is it not erecting
depotism in our very midst ? Is it not pla.
cling the lives, liberty and property of our fell.
ow-citizens in the hands of irresponsible and
frequently designing demagogues? And is
not the Democr attic doctrine of "leaving the
people free TO regulate their own domestic IN.
stitutions," the only true doctrine, the doctrine
of our forefathers for which they did battle and
achieved our independence. And, on the con-
trary is not the Republican doctrine the very
identical one put forth by George III and his
misistry, adopted by the House OF Commons
and endorsed In the House of Lords
The comparison cannot be denied. We have
Tory Party in our midst. We need not be
surprised, then, that that party should receive
the caresses and helping hand of our aristocrat-
TO brethren across the waters.