Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1858-04-03
G9e Dermont pbenix.
BRATTLEBORO, VT,
SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1853.
Where is the Inconsistency


Union under the Lecompton Constitution, " com
"pletely undermnes the doctrine of State rights
"and popular sovereignty, and centralizes the
"power Of the federal government and fur
thermore that 1t makes Congress rather than
g. the people the fountain Of power, and reduces
"the inhabitants of an inchoatc State to the
"conditon of vassals." The Argus asserts that
THE PnGNiX has denounced popular sovereign
", and that it supported Fremont for the pres
idcncy on platform declaring that ." the Con
stitution ronfers upon Congress sovereign pow
err over territories of the United States for their
government, &c." and concludes with incon-
sistency in the matter. All the statements of
fact in the Aryus, above quoted, are correct, but
its charge of inconsistency is not so manifest.
That boot is on the other leg" even that of
the ArguS.
THE PHGN1x has never been an advocate of
the doctrine of popular sovereignty as vitalsed
into principle by the Kansas Nebraska bill
1t has always claimed the constitutional right
of Congress " to make all needful rules for the
government of the territories, and still adheres
to the wisdom and soundness of that construc-
ton of the Constitution. But the democratic
party, in 1854 virtually set aside that construc-
ton, and established in its stead the principle
of squatter sovereignty-conceding to the first
few settlers in territory the right of deciding
upon the character of her institutions, and of
giving them such an inclination or bias as would
H.. Al. Il.
years thereafter. This bantling was digniied
by the name of popular sovereignty. In the
speeches made at the time by those most deep
ly engaged in causing this departure from the
construction of the Constitution for which we
have contended, it was expressly declared that
according to the fundamental principles of our
government the people should have the exciu-
siye power, rather than Congress, of making
their own laws and regulations, and that such
was their intent in introducing popular sover-
eighty into the territories. 1t is true that the
South asked for the passage of the Nebraska
Kansas bill on somewhat different grounds.
The pro-slavery representatives claimed the
right under the constitution to take their chat
tells into any of the territories, or States even,
within the province of the federal government
But this was never the oStelsiJle ground upon
which the northern democrats supported that
measure whether or not it was the true rea-
son why they advocated the repeal of the Mis-
sour Compromise they best can answer.
Under such circumstances the doctrine of pop
ular sovereignty was crystazed into law of
the land It's under popular sovereignty alone
that territories can now become legally organ
lied and the machinery of local government
legitimatcly put in operation. Since this is so
we claim that the principle shall be honestly
carried out according to the reasonable expec-
tations of the public,-in accordance with the
Interpretation put upon the act by those vino
originated it and were its known opponents.
So far and so far only are we advocates of pop
ular sovereignty. 1t is with this understand
ing--no other than which could reasonly have
been inferred from the whole course of TIE
PHdnix in relation to this subject,-that we
dcnouncc the bill admitting Kansas under the
Lecompton Constitution as violation of popu-
lar sovereignty, and as a usurpation on the part
of Congress of powers that were expressly del
egated to the people.
Stephen A. Douglas, then and now United
States Senator from Illinois, was the reputed
father of the Kansas Nebraska act, its ablest
advocate in Congress and its most eloquent ex-
FOUNDER before the people. 1t is to be pre-
sumed that he is the man best fitted now to ex-
,,lni,, thn tr,to md, of
He contends that in the presentation of the Le-
compton Constitution to Congress and in the
admission of Kansas under that instrument the
terms of the act in question have not been COM
piled with in any just sense of that term. He
insists that popular sovereignty legitmatey APP
plies to all the institutions of that territory, not
to Slavery alone. The argus has time and
again argued the question on that ground. But
now, for reasons not difficult to appreciate, the
-frg"s contends that popular sovereignty APP
plies to the subject matter of Slavery only,
leaving, by implication, all other questions to
be settled by Congress.
On such grounds rests the charge of incon-
sistency put forth so vain glorio usly by the Ar
gus. We submit that these charges are not on
ly without foundation, but that they recoil upon
its own head
The argus "denies the assertions of TIE
"PHGNIX that the principle of popular sover-
"eignty is violated by the Lecompton Constitu-
"tion." Popular sovereignty is thus defined by
Senator Douglas: "By the Kansas Nebraska
"act the people of the territory Kansas were
"vested with all the rights and privileges of self
government, on all rightful subjects of legisla-
"tion, consistent with and in obedience to the
"organic act" In the summing up of his able
report he shows conclusively how the principle
was violated, and we will offset the denial of the
ArJus with the Senator's written language:
IN the face Of all these evidences that the Lecomp
ton constitution is not the net Of the people Kansas
aud does not embOly their will that it was formed
b. convention elected under AN act of the territorial
legislature without the consent Of Congress; that the
sixty delegates composing the convention were chosen
By nineteen Of the thrty-eght counties In tine Terri
tory while the other nineteen counties were entirely,
DISTINGUISHED without any fault of their own nv the
failure or refusal of the officers whose duty il wos
under the law, to take n census and register the vot
ers in order to ente them to vote for delegates thnt
the mode of submission to the people for Qualification
or rejection rs prescribed by the convention was
such as TO render it impossible for the people 10 reject
H. Tor II allowed no person vote who wOuld nor vote