The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-12-29

never thought of going to Kansas. These
rights have ever regarded as fully secured
to the people of ''all the Territories" in
adopting their State Constitution, by the
Kansas and Nebraska bill. Such is the
construction given to that act by Congress
! in passing the Minnesota bill, SO justly aP-
plauGed by the President. Such is the
cor =t-uction of this Kansas act by its dis
| tinguisied author, not only in his late most
able argument, but in addresses made and
| published by him long antecedent to that
date, showing that this sovereign power Of
the people, in acting upon State Consti-
tuition. is not confined to the question of
| slavery, but includes all other subjects en-
! braced in such an instrument. Indeed l
believe the Kansas and Nebraska bill would
have violated the rights of sovereignty re-
served to the people of each State by the
| Federal Constitution, if it had deprived
them, or Congress should now deprive them,
of the right of voting for or against their
State Constitution. The President, in his
message, thinks that the rights secured by
this bill to the people, in acting upon their
State Constitution, are confined to the
slavery question, but l think, as shown in
my address before quoted, that ''sovereign-
| ty is the power that makes Constitutions
slavery clause in State Constitution, but
all others must be submitted. The Presi-
dent thinks that sovereignty can be dele
gated at least in part. l think sovereignty
cannot be delegated at all. The President
believes that sovereignty is divisible be-
tween conventions and the people. to be ex-
ercised by the former on all subjects but
slavery, and by the latter only on that
question. Whereas. l think that sover-
eighty is ''inalienable." .indivisible," a
'.unit incapable of PARTITION and ''that it
cannot be delegated" in whole or in part.
1t will not be denied that sovereignty is
the only power that can make State Con-
stitution, and that it rests exclusively with
the people, and if it is inalienable, and can
not be delegated, as have shown, then it
can only be exercised by the people them
selves. Under our government. we know
no sovereigns but the people. Conventions
are composed of delegates" They are
mere agents or trustees, exercising not a
sovereign but delegated power, and the
people are the principals. The power dele
gated to such Conventions can properly
only extend to the framing of the Constitu-
ton, but its ratification or rejection can
only be performed by the power where SOW
ereignty alone rests, namely, the people
themselves. We must not confound sover-
eign with delegated powers. The provi-
sional authority of a Convention to frame a
Constitution and submit it to the people, is
a delegated power; but sovereignty alone,
which rests exclusively with the people, can
ratify and put in force that Constitution.
And this is the true doctrine of popular
sovereignty, and know of no such thing,
nor does the Federal Constitution recog-
nize it, as delegated or conventional sover-
passage of his able message, gives unnn-
swerable reasons why the people, and not
conventions, should decide the question of
slavery in framing State Constitution
! He says very truly, that from the necessary
| division of the inchoate State into districts,
majority of the delegates may think one
way, and the people another, and that the
delegates (as was the case in Kansas) may
violate their pledges or fail to execute the
will of the people. And why does not this
reasoning apply with equal force to all other
great questions embodied in a State Con-
stitution and why should the question of
slavery alone override and extinguish the
doctrine of popular sovereignty and the
ly this is no sectional question, for it be-
longs alike to the States admitted or in
choate, of the South as of the North. 1t is
not question of slavery, but of State rights
and of State and popular sovereignty, and
my objections to the Lecompton Constitu-
ton are equally strong, whether Kansas I'M
der its provisions should be made free
or slave State. My objections are based
upon a violation Of the right of self govern
ment and of State and popular sovereignty,
and of forcing any Constitution upon the
people against their will, whether it recog-
nized freedom or slavery. Indeed the first
question which the people ought to decide,
in forming q government for an inehoate
State, is, whether they will change or not
from Territorial to a State government.
Now as no one who, with me, denies FEEDER
al or Territorial sovereignty, will contend
that Territorial Legislature is sovereign,
or represents sovereignty, or that such leg
islaturc "a mere creation of Congress) can
transfer sovereignty which it does not pos
sess, to Territorial convention, this change
from a Territorial to State government
can only be made by the power where SOW
ereignty rests-namely, the people. Yet
a State governm ent is forced upon the peo-
pie of Kansas by the Lecompton Constitu-
ton, whether they will it or not, for they
can only vote for the Con stitution, and not