The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-10-16

and every man who signed that instrument
represented a slave-holding constituency
Rccoiect, also, that no oae of Thorn emsnci-
patcd qis slaves, much less put them on an
equality with himself, after he sisuod the
Declaration. On the contrary, they all CON.
tinued to hold their negroes as slaves. du-
ring the revolutionary war. Now, do YOU
belleve-are you willing to have i said
that every man who signed the Declaration
OF independence declared the negro his
equal, and then was hyprocrit enough to con-
tinue to hold him as a slave, in violation of
what he believed tie be the divine law tNo,
no. And yet when you say that the Dec
laration of Independence includes the negro,
you charge the signers of it with hypocrisy.
say to you, frankly, that in my opinion
this government was made by our fathers
on the white basis 1t was made by white
men for the benefit of white men and their
posterty forever, and was intended to be adj
ministrated BY white men in all time to come.
CHATS so, and cheers.) But while hold
that under our constitution and political sys-
TEN the negro is not citizen, cannot be
citizen, and ought not to be a citizen, it does
not follow by any means that he should be
a slave. On the contrary it does follow
that the negro, as an inferior race, ought to
possess every right, every privilege, every
immunity which he can safely exercise CON
sistcnt with the safety of the society in which
he lives. (That's so. and cheers) Human
ity requires, and Christianity commands
that you shall extend to every inferior being,
and every dependent being, all the privile-
ges, immunities and advantages which can
be granted to them consistent with the safe
ty OF society. II you ask me the nature and
and extent OF these privileges, | answer
that is question which the people of each
State must decide for themselves THAT'S
it, Illinois has decided that question for
herself We have said that in this State the
the negro shall not he slave, nor shall be
citizen. Kentucky holds different doctrine.
New York holds one d fferent from either.
and Maine one different from ALL Virginia,
in her policy on this question, differs in II any
respects from the others, and So on. until
there is hardly two States whose policy is
exactly alike in regard to the relation of the
white man and the negro. Nor can you re,
oncile them and make them alike. Each
State must do as it pleases. Illinois had as
much right to adopt the policy which we
have on that subject as Kentucky had to
adopt different policy. The great princi-
pie Of this government is that each State
has the right to do as it plcases on all these
questions, and no ether State, or power on
earth has the right to interfere with us, or
complain of us merely because our system
differs from theirs. In the compromise meas
ures Of 1850, Mr.. Clay declared that this
great principle ought to exist in the terrific
ries as well as in the States, and | reasserted
his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska
bill in 1854.
But Mr.. Lincoln cannot be made to un-
Il i
vote for him, no matter whether he is pro-
slavery man in the south and negro equality
advocate in the north, cannot be made to
understand how it is that in a territory the
people can do as they please on the slavery
question under the bred Scott decision Let
us see whether | cannot explain it to the
satisfaction of all impartial men, Chief JUS.
tice fancy has said in his opinion in the
bred Scott case, that negro slave being
property, stands on an equal footing with
carry them into the United States territory
the same as he does other property. CHATS
SOL Suppose any two of you, neighbors,
should conclude to go to Kansas, one carry
ing 100000 worth OF negro slaves and the
other Sl00,O 900 worth Of mixed merchandise,
including quantities of liquors. You both
agree that under that decision you may carry
your property to Kansas, but when you get
it there, the merchant who is possessed of
the liquors is met by the Maine liquor law,
which prohibits the sale or use Of his prop
erty, and the owner of the slaves is met by
equally unfriendly csislation, which makes
his property worthless after he gets it there
What is the right to carry your property in
to the territory worth to either, when I'M
friendly legislation in the territory renders
it worthless after you get it there? The
Shareholder when he gets his slaves there
finds that there is no local law to protect him
in holding them, no slave code, no police
regulation maintaining and supporting him
in his right, and he discovers at once that
the absence of such friendly legislation ex-
cludes his property from the territory, jus,
as rresstibly as if there was positive con-
stituticnal prohibition excluding it. Thus
you find it is with any kind of property in
a territory, it depends for its protection on
the local and municipal law. If the people
of a territory want slavery, they make friend
ly legislation to Introduce it, but if they do
not want it, they Withhold all protection from
it, and then it cannot exist there. Such was
tine view taken or the subject by different
Southern men when the Nebrask bill passed.
Sec the speech of Mr.. Orr, Of South Carolina,
sentativcs of Congress made at that time.
and there you will find this whole doctrine
argued out at full length. Read the spec
ches o: OF er southern congressman, Sena-
tors and Representatives, made in 1854, and
you will find that they take the same view
Of the subJectas Mr.. Orr-that slavery could
Rever be forced on people who did not want
1t. l hold that in this country there is no
power on the face of the globe that can force
any institutions on an unwilling people
The great fundamental principle of our gov
erHment is that the people of each State and
each territory should be left perfectly free to
decide for themselves what shall be the ma
ture and character Of their Institutions
W hen this government was made, it was
based on that principle. At the time of its
formation there were twelve slayeholdins
States and one free State in this Union
Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln and the
Republicans, of uniformity Of the laws of all
the States on the subject of slavery, had pre-
vailed suppose Mr.. Lincoln himself had
been member of the convention which
framed the constitution, and that he had risen
in that august body, and addressing the faith.
err of his country, had said as he did at
S ,ringfie)d.
"a house divided against itself cannot stand he.
IieVe this government cannot endure permanently ha f
slave and half FREQ l de expect the Union to be
dssolr ID do not expect the house fall, do ex-
fer;it will cease to be divided 1t will become all one
hing all the other"
" hat do YOU think would have boen the re.
suit: lllurrah for Douglass Suppose he
had made that convention believe that doc.
trine and they had acted upon it, what do
you think would have been the results Do
you believe that the one free State would
have voted out the twelve slaveholding |
States, and TINS abolished slavery? (No! |
no! and cheers.) On the contrary, would |
not the twelve slaveholding States have out |
voted the free State, and under his 4 5ctrine |
have fastened slavery by an irrcvc Gle con-
stltutlona provision upon every il of the