Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-12-31

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 81, 1857.
Ponnlar sovereignty.

when and how the rights and powers of
each are to be exercised, have been ques-
lions prolific of debate in Congress, and
out Of it from the day of the Introduction
Of that bill into Congress. Unfortunately
for the success of that measure, the repeal
Of the Missouri Compromise aroused to
the fever heat all the sectional feelings and
bitter antipathies which had previously
ragged, but we're quieted by the legislation
of 1850 And this fresh excitation Of
prejudices has doubtless been the principal
drawback to fair and Just Interpretation
of popular sovereignty.
But the question is not new one in this
country. It's prominent features were pro-
pounded and discussed twenty-five years
ago, under circumstances scarcely less in
fammatory and dangerous than at the pres
ent The notification convention of South
Carolina, and the Act of the South Caro-
lima Legislature, declaring and fixing the
allegiance of her citizens to herself as su-
perior to their allegiance to the Union
| placing the authority of State constitu-
ton above the Federal constitution, all
grew out of the question Of State rights
or popular sovereignty. And out of it
has also grown all those specious theories
of secession which have crazed the minds
Of that proud and chivarous people But
when the minds of such men as Marshall,
Story, Webster and Clay, were brought to
bear upon it, it was settled by the over
whelming artillery of logic; and the mass
es in all parts of the Union have regarded
the views of the Calhoun school on this
subject as ultra and pure distractions
and by it Mr. Calhoun has won the distinc-
tion of being an able political metaphysi-
clan, rather than a powerful practical
| statesman. And so the question has rest
ed, as applicable to the States.
But with the shifting exigencieS of par
ties and of individuals heading parties,
the question of popular sovereignty has
been revived, varying from the South Car
DINA case, in its application to a territory
! instead of a state. 1t was, in its origin,
! but a reshufle of the cards by a shrewd
and far seeing p, Ideal iutriguer, the only
| difference being a Encouragement of part
ners, and a change of the deck-head.
! Dressing it in characteristic ambiguity,
Judge Douglas foisted it into the Kansas
Nebraska bill. 1t did well enough as a
question for debate among aspiring polti-
clans and newspaper writer's, until it comes
| up for practical construction and adoption
| by Congress in the admission of Kansas
as State. Having adopted. not only the
! doctrine itself but all of its illogical con-
sequences" Judge DuogIas leads off in
his ample construction of the principle
But the logical consequences" carry him
a gunshot beyond the South Carolina doc
trine. He now assumes that the people
are not only collectively sovereign, but
that each individual in the territory pos
Sesses specific, inalienable, indivisiblesove-
reignty Of his own, which cannot find its
expression, except at the baIlot-box. He
holds to just such popular sovereignty as
rioted through Athens, on the day the
PEOPLE banished Aristides, because, for
sooth, they were tired of hearing him cal
led The JUsTl The South Carolina multi
iiers, on the contrary, expressly declared
in and by their convention, that a conven-
ton Of delegates possessed all the delega-
ted power of the commonwealth, that the
convention was the people
But Judge Douglas goes still further,
and assumes in his recent speeches in the
Senate, and by their "IogicUl consequent
ces," that this individual sovereignty is of
so high and inviolable a character, its pos
| SCISSOR may refuse, from choice, factiously.
to exercise it, and that in such case he is
not bound by the action of those who do
| exercise it. For example, an election is
ordered by the legal authority to be held
at certain time and place; he is required
to appear and express his opinion by his
vote, and he is assured of the most annie
protection in so doing; he yet from some
cause-i-ndifference, personal Inconvenience.
or even opposition, political and personal.
| to the authority ordering the election
refuses to vote or participate in any man
ner in the proceeding; Judge Douglas
holds that he is not in any degree bound
or committed by such proceeding. In
other words, that factions body of per-
sons may obstruct the lawful authorities of
government, and by stubborn opposition
to the legally established order of things
pull down government and establish an
archy. Judge Douglas dsdans to inquire
what causes may operate to produce such
factjous refusal; he refuses to inquire into
the propriety Of the action Of those who
do vote, who do obey the laws and avail
themselves Of the rights and privileges Of
a lawful sovereignty at the baIIot-box; he
boldly espouses the cause Of the turbulent.
the factious, and demands that their will
be done. These are the assumptions and
and logical consequence" Of assumptions
| by Senator Of the United States.