The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1858-02-27

NE NaOlnet well knew my Opinions on tnlS
subject and that never would have gone to
ting the submission Of the constitution for /
ratification or rejection by . vote Of tho PEG /
pie. This, with me, was vital question,
embodying the only fair, just, peaceful and
constitutional method Of settling the diff |
culties in Kansas. 1t was with extreme re- |
luctance, and accompanied by great sacIih- |
ces, and after repeated refusals, that l ut
length did consent to 60 TO Kansas; but upon
no other terms would ! have gone, than
upon those above indicated; and IL the Pres
| ident had stated to me that the slavery ques-
| ton only was required to be submitted to the
vote of the people, he very we'll knows, and
all his Cabinet well know, and al my friends
who conferred with me at that date know,
that on such conditions never would have
gone to Kansas.
In my administration of the affairs of Kan
sas, always communicated from first to last
to the President, faithfully carried out
these views AS regards the submission Of the
Constitution to the vote ofltNe people, and by
these means. as the President frankly admits
in his late Kansas message, prevented san
| revolution would have covered Kansas with
: blood and desolation; it would have been
marked by all those horrors which ever &C
company civil war, which must have extend
ed to bordering States and Territories, and
involved, but too probably, the ruin Of our
beloved country. How was this dreadful ca
tastrophe avertedi By my addresses and dis
patches, quoted by the President, advocat-
ing the submission OF the Constitution for
ratification or rejection by the vote of the
people. Indeed my only alternative was to
suppress this revolution by the bayonet, or
1 by advocating the submission Of the Consti-
tuition as above stated, and pledging my best
exertions to obtain fair election for the PEG
pie, of the Territorial Legislature, in the then
ensueing October. These pledges, and these
alone, il is conceded, prevented revolution
and civil war. And why should they not be
redecmed3 For myself, these pledges have
been thus far most faithfully maintained, and
they will be redeemed by me, If necessary,
with the last drop Of my life's blood, and to
the latest hour Of my existence. These were
pledges well known to the President and all
his Cabinet. They were pledges given by
me in good faith, and any abandonment Of
them now on my part, after the people have
{ accepted and acted npon them, would be to
cover myself with infamy and dishonor
Whatever, then. may be the action OF the
: wavering, timid or corrupt, menace and pro-
y scription have no terrors for me. will con.
tinue to tread the path where conscience and
duty call me, regardless Of all consequence,
: or sacrifices, personal or political. But wcr,
a the case now exempt from these pledges anc
their consequences, is it true that the people
Q in framing q State Constitution are only q
decide the slavery ques ion? Has it come I,
2 are to decide only the destiny Of such Afii
can rs may be in their limits. and not upoi
ali those far greater right which concern tn
e life, liberty, property and happiness of q fire.
pcoplei Has the African become SO clevatet
above the free men Of this Union, that they
IS in their sovereign capacity, may not decid
= upon all that concerns their own government
but only upon the fate Of that sable race tina
IT may be within their boundariesi And 10
r. true that the people in inchoats free State
can neither ratify or reject any part Of thei
n State Constitution, but that this can be don
. in inchoate slave States only, and then onl
~ as regards this one particular institution
n The Kansas and Nebraska bill declares it I
"a be "the true intent and meaning of the ac'
y to leave the people thereof perfectly free t
|. form their domestic institutions, in their ow
United States" Now the President in hi
s, December message admits that the term '.pec
8 pie" a. here used. means what it says, th
people themselves in their sovereign capac
le ity as acknowledgements from conventions
II in voting TOR or against the ratiacatio
ola State Constitution. But he says I'll
g terms "domestic institutions" in the plura
Of slavery. But the term THEIR domest
10 institutions" most CLEARLY include then
nt all, because extending in words and lei
ter to all the territories of the Unior
y whether bond or free. The President n
I. CARDS this Kansas and Nebraska bill ~ a
enabling act but enabling whom, or what, {
er howl. Why, enabling the people to forI
e. and regulate their domestic institution
through State Convention. The wor
w az ia bovA x;0pi6cspt WhoAvar apot
II Of forming the institution Of slaveryl TIL
word most clearly implies the forming Of
r State Constitution; and if it does not mea
W this, it is not an enabling act, for that is q
great object and purpose of such an act.-
y These words then do enable tho people
is frame State Constitution, and by whic
alone they shall form and regulate their in
O. stitntions; and the President comedies thu
lie the word ''pcopie, ;" rs here used, means, as
says, the people themselves, rs contradistii
'r' guished from conventions, BY direct vo
for ratification or rejection. This then b
ing an enabling act, an act, construed
the President, enabling the people to fran
n their own Constitution, this term, the peopl
.ss cannot have interpretations, one meanin
he the people themselves, and another also
en- the President insists, conventions only. N
IRE these words the people in that act. have b
st, one Specification, as applicable to oil the
ny domestic institutions, and it can never be II
he terpreted to mean, as the President won
set construe it, in what he calls an enabling nc
mt the people, so far as regards the question
slavery, and conventions only, as regards q
ew other subjects. No; this great act, dcclar
,r- tory upon its very face, was intended to r
= cognize the right of sclf-government in
les broadcast and mos. comprehensive sense,
N vested in the people themselves, extendir
'ut to all their domestic institutions in ratiyiI
of or rejecting their State Constitutions, who
ill provisions could only be known and act
esq on by them, when submitted for their deci
Ito ion by the convention. And thus it W
is that the Kansas and Nebraska bill was . =
er- cognition OF that great fundamental prime
ed pie of public liberty, embodied in the fedcr
Of constitution, reserving all sovereignty to {
is people of the several States admitted or j
lie. choate, and not as vested in conventions w
he possess no sovereignty, (which cannot
mt delegated or divldsd) but arc servants OF .
- people only and not their masters. Such
S. the true meaning Of the term people in G
pit Kansas and Nebraska bill, as now and a
nat Such was the Interpretation given to this q
ion by both houses Of Congress, in the MINES
ect Ia Act, (Which is but supplemental and
In execution of the Kansas and Nebraska BIZ
DO in requiring the Constitution itself to be su
ted mitted, for ratification or rejection, to {
ted vote Of the people. And why should Il
The odious distinction be made between Kans
list, and Minnesota Why should the people
the the latter be permitted to vote for or agar
atn tbo vat;Acat;or If thar Stata Cou stitutir