The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-12-22
HON. STEPHEN A. poUaLAs.

On uaI part or the PRESIDENTS Message
relating to Kansas. We have read the
speech, and while we feel impressed with
the commanding ability of Mr. Douglas and
the sincerity by which he is prompted, we
are constrained to differ with him in regard
20 the propriety of his course.
The contradictory rumors (says the Rich
mond Enquirer,) relative to the eontemplat-
ed position of Senator Douglas before the
compton Convention, left the public mind
in doubt, whether he would waive all OBJ
jections and concur in the expediency of
the immediate admission of Kansas, or as
! sumo such an attitude of hostility to it, as
to place himself in embarrassing opposition
to the Administration. His late speech in
the Senate, we think. is susceptible of no
misconstruction. 1t is plain in language,
powerful in argument and bold in declara-
ton, however Objectionable it may be in the
policy it sustains. Stephen A. Douglas is
no timid or temporizing politician. He is
always as free and fearless in the avowal,
as he is able in the maintenance of his opn-
ions. In the midst of Aboltionism of the
darkest dye, he has denounced it. Sur
rounded by the envenomed enemies of slave
ry, he has manfully indicated the rights of
the South. And yet, we hear that he has
suddenly deserted the Democratic party
that he has farsaken the flag which, like
Napoleon at Lodi, he has so often and so
calamity waved, as he cheered on the Dem
ocracy of the North to bare their breasts to
the blows of an overwhelming opposition,
ly 1t might rage.
If Senator Douglas speech in the Senate
chamber is the only evidence of his guilt, we
entertain not doubt, that the Democratic
party South as well as North. will unhesi-
totingly acquit him of the grave charge up
on which he is arraigned. 1t is true his
position is not acceptable to US. 1t is true
he stands in open opposition to the Admin
istration, in so far AS the admission of Kan
sas under the action of tho Lecompton
Convention is concerned. But still we
cannot see that he is at all affiliated with
the Black Republicans. He boldly takes
the gound that the whOle Constitution of
Kansas should be referred to the people, as
sine qua non to the admission of that ter
ritory as a Stare. We differ from Senator
Douglas; but only to the ertent, to
which in this instance he pushes the prin-
ciple of popular sovereignty. His argu-
ments, we consider able and ingenious.
But they are not unanswerable.
The Senator also maintains that the Le-
compton Convention was not Of character
to entitle it to adopt a Constitution; that it
originated in such way as to justify it only
in framing Constitution, to be presented
along with petition to Congress for redress
of greS ances and for 1.-The change of gov
eminent from a territorial to State gov
ernmcnt" And this for the reason that
there was special act of Congress
authorizing tho call of such a convention
This point is strongly fortified; but the ten
dency of the argument is still to the original
issue---a Reproduction of the doctrine that
Congress ought to receive territory into
the Union unless there is a satisfactory evil
dence that the Constitution presented rep
resents the will of the people.
Senator Douglas holds that the proposed
modes of submitting the slavery question
to the people is not fair even so far as that
question alone is concerned. He says by
providing that the vote shall be for the
Constitution and against slavery, or for the
Constitution and for slavery, as no man is
allowed to vote either pro or con on the
Slavery question. unless he also votes in
faror of the Constitution, that all who are
opposed to the Constitution are virtually
DISTINGUISHED. And that as it is said the
Constitution would be voted down, if it was
submitted, it therefore follows, that there is
majority against it; and consequently that
q majority of the people of Kansas are thus
prevented from voting even on the slavery
question. The Senator's reasoning is add
known that the slarery question has been
the great bone of contention throughout
this Kansas controversy. And it is far
fetched indeed now to suppose for mo-
dispute has become so suddenly secondary,
as to induce either the anti slavery or pro-
slavery men to so far forego their opinion
and prejudices as to be indifferent to the re-
suit 1t is idle to contend that the ordinary
organic laws of Kansas are of more interest
to the people of that Territory than the
adoption or exclusion of slavery. That
Constitution must be obnoxious, indeed,
when either an anti-slavery or pro-slavery
man would refuse to vote for or against
slavery, rather than agree to accept it. 1t
must be remembered, too. that each man is
we'll aware. that if he does decline to vote at
all on the slavery question, because he is not
willing to accept the Constitutions the result
will he the same, so far as the Constitution
is concerned. 1t will be considered adopt
ed, according to the mode of election, wheth-