The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1858-01-13
More about Kansas and Douglas,


We find in the Washington Union an able
communication above the signature Of
"Union," in which the writer, one Of the
most profound thinkers of the age, exposes
the sophislry indulged in by Judge Douglas
in most convincing and mastery manner.
The writer says:
Permit me, through the columns Of your
paper, to present a short review Of one or
two points in the speech delivered in the
United States Senate by Judge Douglas, on
the 9th December last. ,sN. r
The sum and substance of his argument,
and the great point made by him, may be
stated in short thus That the Kansas-Ne-
braska act guaranteed to the people of Kan
sas the right to regulate their domestic af-
fairs in their own way; and, therefore, the
convention of delegates elected by the peo.
pie of Kansas, having failed TO submit the
constitution made by them to vote of the
people of the Territory, had acted in con-
travention of this provision, and thus denied
to the people right guaranteed to them by
the act. -
This is his premise and this his conclu-
sion; or, rather, he aims to make the Presi.
dent, by false construction and coloring of
his instructions TO Gov Walker, and of his
message, assume both his premise and
conclusion and upon this he builds his
whole argument, alleging that both are
granted, and his reasoning therefore con-
elusive.
1t can make no difference to the reasoner
whence or from what source Mr.. Douglas
springs his argument, he alone is RESPONSE
BILE for its logical fairness and integrity.
He assumes, therefore, that the Kansas
Nebraska act gave to the people of Kansas
the right to regulate their domestic affairs in
their own way, and affirms that the refusal
of the Convention 10 submit the Constitu-
tion to vote of the people, is denial OF
the rights guaranteed 10 them by this clause
of the act.
AS logical proposition his premise is
true, because it is the SIMPLE language of
the act itself; but, unfortunately for his
conclusion, it is not sequence from his
premise. He affirms nothing in the premise
in regard to the Constitution nor the sub
mission of the Constitution 10 a popular
vote, and yet from his conclusion, one would
suppose he had affirmed both. In othef
words, his conclusion is broader than his
premise, or rather has nothing to do with it,
and is what losicians would term non
sequiier
Had he assumed as his premise that the
bill by its provisions required the Conven-
ton TO submit the Constitution to popular
vote, then his conclusion would have been
legitimate and proper, because legitimate
sequence from his premise. But had he
made such affirmation the fact of the bill
would have stared him in the face TO contra.
dict his assumption. The Kansas-Nebraskd
act contains no such provision.
To expose the lallacy of this mode of rea
soning let me submit one or two PROPOSE
tions in every way parallel to the one taken
rom tho s-thstanr7 of Mfr. pvusius
speech.
The constitution Of my State secures to
me personal liberty and the exclusive right
of personal property; therefore he who inn
prisons me by legal process for crime, OIL
thus takes my property, deprives me o.
those constitutional rights.
Again; The constitution of every Stale
guarantees 10 The citizen the right of self
government therefore that State Legislature
/ which fails or refuses to submit ITS enact,
ments 10 a vote of the people denies tc
them the right of this constitutional provi
sion!
The fallacy of such reasoning, its absurd
sophistry, is too apparent TO need any fu-
ther calculation; and yet, out of just suct
augmentation Judge Douglas has construc
ted his whole speech; and some men ever
seem to be smitten by his logic!
"Perfectly free to regulate their domestic
affairs in their own way" Might not the
people of Kansas, under this provision o.
the act, have elected their delegates 10 form
a Constitution, and instructed them not &c
submit the Constitution to a popular vote
And had they pursued such course, could
Mr.. Douglas charge that in such refusal the
Convention had violated this or any othel
provision OF the act? Surely not.
If this be granted, here is an exception
The people could absolve their delegates
from this duty, and the exception but proves
the absurdity of his position, and the fallacy
of his argument; for if the act required the
submission to be made, the people them
selves could not absolve the delegates from
the obligations enjoined upon them.