Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-09-09
REPUBLICAN CONVENTION.
speech of Hon. EIi Thayer.

VIC SChtiSuhu mo DTOCSbu6u AuG ouO w ~
yielded the floor for the purpose of enabling
me to occupy it, has declined further to pro-
coed. l know not what to say to you con-
corning the politics of Massachusetts,, unless
it be to congratulate you upon the very great
unanimity which now exists here against the
"hoty Democracy" Applause. If there is
anything whatever to deprecate, 1t is the fact
that there is so much harmony that it may
lead TO inacton
In relation to our national platform, which
is not yet perfected, have only to say, that
there is every prospect of its being made good
aud strong, and large enough for victorious
party to occupy in 1860 Loud applause.
our resolutions have already proclaimed
your sentiments upon several topics. You
have expressed your love for the Union, 1t
Is now fact, think uudisputed, that we
are the greatest union party on the continent.
Where are the disunion members of the Re-
publican party to be found and where
south of Mason and Dixon's line are not the
disunion members Of the Democratic party
to be found ; You have already expressed
an opinion concerning the tariff, which be-
leve is not extravagant in any direction.
You have expressed an opinion on the acquis-
ition of territory. Well, gentlemen, have
very strong tendency towards land, the ac-
1NA9A'ANA Va tSAiltOAY ny ialA LASaus OhAJ' l.
am opposed to eircumscribing the mission of
this government as much as circumscribing
the mission of any individual in this govern
ment. 1 will not say to any man that he
cannot exercise his powers of mind and body
for the good of his fellow men outside of the
town in which he resides and L will not
say to this country that her sphere shall be
confined with the limits of the United States.
think her mission is beyond that.
Then we are certainly tending now towards
certain positive principles "A platform Of
positive principles, without which no party can
ever succeed in this government. If party
is ever to be anything but an opposition party,
it must have some object in view for which it
will contend. An opposition party is simply
the historian of the party in power, as
the Wing party used to be OF the Democratic
party. But l trust it is the mission of the
Republican party not so much to write history
as 10 make it. l think that hereafter we will
have it for others to record, rather than be
ourselves simply the recorders of what others
have done. For this purpose it is necessary
that we should have positive policy. We
have spoken upon several issues now before
the country, but the greatest national issue is
the question concerning the government of
the territories and what shall be the position
of the Republican party upon that question
We already have the position of the Demo-
cratic party, such as it is. They have pro-
fessed to hold the doctrine of popular sover
eighty, but where has been the practice of
it, 1t has been theory only the practice has
been despotism. Three times that party,
which prolessed to be the author of popular
sovereignty, has repudiated that doctrine. 1t
repudiated it by refusing to vote for the
amendment of Senator Chase, in 1854, by
which he proposed 10 cut off not only the in.
reference by Congress in the territories, but
by the Chief Executive. and thus leave the
people of the territory i'll reality to make
their institutions in their own way.
The Democrats, including Douglas, voted
against the proposition, and thus repudiated
popular sovereignty" Again, in voting for
the Toombs' bill, the repudated popular
sovereignty" for that was intended to force
Constitution upon the people of Kanzas
without first submitting it for their adoption.
And again they repudiated that doctrine
with very few exceptions, in refusing to vote
for the Crittenden, Montgomery Bill Then
say to you to- day, that the Democratic party
is not the author nor the supporter of the
doctrine of popular sovereignty" But l
congratulate you, members of the Republican
party, on being this day on the record in favor
of that doctrine. During the last session of
Congress you know your representatives,
without an exemption, voted for the same
bill which the Democrats repudiated-
"Crittendon- Montgomery Bill'-which in.
volved and included the doctrine of "popular
sovereignty" And what man has apologized
to you for his votes What man has inquired
of you even whether you approve of that &C.
ton or not? They know you approve of that
nd f1n,, Iol a..
would have branded them as traitors to their
party. So this party has recorded itself as the
supporter of the doctrine of popular sover-
eighty" in this country.
Is there anything to deprecate in this?
come now to this question, and find that
there are some in this party who are still in
clined to adhere to the old opinion that it is
the right and duty Of Congress to egislate for
the Territories. So far as the affirma alton of
the right is concerned, agree entirely. but
concerning the duty do not agree for, fell
low-citizens, by accident or by providence, we
have found a better way. Let us see for a
moment what would be the effect of pressing
this old issue of excluding slavery from the
Territories by law. And, first, how can YOU
make that law effective, against the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States,
which declares that slavery may go into these
Territories in spite of any law whatever, and
that any law intended to prevent this, will be
unconstitutional But, says a friend, we
will reverse this decision of the judiciary.
But when f? How long, Will not the party
become extinct before that can be accomplish.
ed, and will it not be futile to attempt itl
But, even if it be effected, then of what
practical effect would be law excluding
slavery from territry Understand that It
is admitted on all hands that law excluding
slavery frcm any territory can be of no bind
ing force except during the time that it is A
territory for we all agree that the sovereign
ty of the States is one and the same, and that
any new State has the same right to establish
slavery within its limits that Massachusetts, or
Ohio has. Then is it policy for us to trust to
this security. which is fallacious and decep
tive For what is the tendency and effect of
law excluding slavery, and what is its in
huence upon the people. Suppose we had
had law excluding slavery from Kanzas-
that the Missouri Compromise had not been
repealed-do you believe that there would
have been free State party in Kanzas
tell you it would have been impossible to
arouse sufficient energy in the free States to
carry population there sufficient to control
the territory or in any way to shape its desti-
N.Y.
There was the utmost Indifference in the
free Staaes in regard to that territory, and if
the pro-slavery party had been discreet or
had exercised common sagacity, they would
have opened that territory without meddlinp
with the Missouri Compromise. But by re-
pealing that Compromise, they outraged the
sentiment of the North. They virtually said
1--WE will wrest II from the possession of tho
North as the inheritance of freedom, and will