The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-08-14

Popular Sovereignty ana the Republicans.
The Chicago Journal, in one of its daily
TRADES against Judge Douglas and the Ne.
braska bill, rails as follows:
To poke that atrocious iBfamy down the
Threats of the Northern people, he invented
the hypocritical pretenss that it established
the doctrine Of popular sovereisnty"-a
doctrine that had been established with the
organization of the Republic, and that had
always been practically applied, by general
to all Territories that were ready to
frame State constitutions preparatory for ad-
mission into the Union.
THAT atrocious infamy" was the Nsbras-
ka bill, the only clause of which, that differs
from every other territorial bill that had
been passed previous to its adoption, was
the clause in which the doctrine of "popu-
lar sovereignty" was distinctly recognized,
by taking from Congress, and giving to the
people of the Territory, "ths right to regulate
their domestic institutions in their own
way" To say that, before the adoption of
the Nebraska bill, this doctrine had "always
been applied, by general consent, to all ter
ritories," is falsehood which the political
history of our country contradicts on every
page. To 60 back no further, was the doc
trine applied by general consent to Mis-
souri,, when that State applied for admission
into the Union, The greatest political ig-
neramus in tho country knows that the only
reason why the admission of Missouri was
resisted for over two years, was because
Congress refused to practically apply" this
doctrine of popular sovereignty to her case
Then the adoption of the far-famed Missouri
Compromise again, SO far from evincing
general consent" to this doctrine, directly
ignored it, by providing that hcnceforth in
all States to be formed out Of certain terrific
ry in the country slavery should ''forever be
prohibited And this doctrine, the oppo-
site of popular soy9Feisnty, was thenceforth
"appli.d by GENERAL consent" to "all terri
tories" iustead>6f the other, until the policy
was partially reversed by the adoption Of
the compromise measures IN 1850, and
wholly by the repeal Of the odious Missouri
restriction by the Nebraska bill in 1851
Instead of popular sovereignty, the restric-
tive doctrine was applied in the case of Wis
consin, Oregon, and Minnesota; and by tho
famous Wi!mot proviso, which every repub-
lican recognizes as good doctrine at this day,
was attempted to be applied to all the terri
tory acquired from Mexico by the treaty Of
peace in ls4S. It was the refusal to give
general consent" to the doctrine Of popular
sovereignty that caused the prolonged sec.
tional controversy that led TO the adoption
Of the compromise measures Of 1850, and
finally TO the repeal of the Missouri restric-
ton in 1854.
If this doctrine of popular sovereignty
was "app!ied by general consent to all ter
ritories from the foundation of the repub-
lie" and is, as tho Journal would imply,
therefore reasonable and just, what was
there about the Nebraska bill that made it
such an "atrocious infamy." Can the
Journal, or any other republican print,
point out an Questionable section or line in
that bill except those clauses in which the
Missouri restriction is removed and the doc
trine of popular sovereignty recognized in
its stead?
This pretence, first uttered by Lincoln in
his Chicago speech, that nobody new oh.
jects, or ever has objected to the doctrine Of
popular sovereignty as applied to new States
about to be admitted into the Upion, is an
after thought Of to day, forced upon few
republican leaders when driven to the wall
in debate, and made to confess that the
Douglas doctrine is correct, and cannot be
successfully assailed. But it is no more ac-
auiesced in now by the republican leaders
than it ever was. This same Chicago Jour.
nal, which thus f-lsely prctends never to
have opposed this doctrine, hailed with ex.
stacy the denomination Of Lovejoy and
Farnsworth for Congress, r, GREETING that ali
tho congressman from this State were not Of
the same stripe, and carries thei! names al
the head of its columns; and yet both
Farnsworth and Lovejoy declared during the
last session of Congress, that they would
never ESQ help me God, never" was
Farnsworth's language,) vote for the adnis-
sion of another slave State into this Union.
The Maine republican State convention but
a week ago affirmed the same thing. Why,
mo more slave States" was the great slogan
Of the republican party in all Northern lii
nois, Indiana. Ohio, New York, and New
England in 1856. Banners bearing this in.
scription were carried in every Fremont pro.
cession we saw in that year. Lincoln af.
firmed tie same thing, but recently hen be
said the agitation of slavery in this country
must continue until all the States aro either
slave or free, and that he was for making all
free. Can he maintain such ground and
vote for the admission of a new State tina;
recognizes slavery? Republicanism is at q
low ebb, indeed, when to rob Judge Douglas
of the credit Of the great act Of his life, i,
must give itself the lie by ignoring its own
leading and favorte doctrines.
The republican States of Massachusetts
and Connecticut have recently passed laws
admitting negroes to the full and free exer.
else Of the elective franchise, and to the en-.
joymen Of all the rights Of citizenship oil
those States on an equal footing with the
whites Of natire birth, requiring residence
of from u to 81 years Of foreign born citi
zens to entitle them to the same rights. Al
fitting response to these generous enact
ments, We give the following telegraph ab
stract of the doings of convention lately