Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1858-10-14
SPEECH OF
HO N, ELI III AVER
OF MASSACHUSETTS,
ION POPULAR SOyEREIGN NTY.

At the Republican State Convention of
Massachusetts,, held at Worcester on the
7th ultimo, the Hon. Eli Thayer made a
speech, in which he spoke as follows upon
the question Of Popular Sovereignty:
In relation to our national platform,
which is not yot perfected, [ have only to
say that there is every prospect of its being
made good and strong and large enough
for a victorious party to occupy in 1860.
Your resolutions have already proclaimed
your sentiments upon several topics. You
have expressed your love for the Union 1t
is now fact, think undisputed, that we
are the greatest Union party on this CONT
nent. Where are the disunion members
of the Republican party to be found? and
where are not the disunion members of the
Democratic party to be found? You have
already expressed your opinion concerning
the tariff, which l believe is not extrava-
CANT in any direction. You have express
ed an opinion on the acquisition of slave
territory. Well, gentlemen, have a very
strong tendency towards land, the acquisi
tion of territory by fair means only. am
opposed to circumscribing the mission Of
this Government, as much as circumscri
bing the mission ofany individual in this
Government / VIII not say to any man
that he shall not exercise his powers of
mind and body for the good of his fellow
men outside of the town in which he resides;
and | will not say to this country that her
L L Il, Al,
of the United States. | think her mission
is beyond that.
Then we are certainly tending now to-
wards certain positive principles--a plat
form of positive principles, without which
no party can ever succeed in this Govern
! ment If party is ever TO be anything but
an opposition party, it must have some OBJ
| ect in view for which it will contend. An
opposition party is simply but the histeri-
an of the party in power, as the Wing par
ty used to be of the Democratic party
But | trust it is the mission of the Repub-
lican party not so much to write history as
to make it. / think that hereafter we will
leave it for others to record rather than be
ourselves simply the recorders of what 9TH
ers have done. For this purpose it is ne
cessary that we should have positive pol
/ icy. 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 par
ty upon that question? We already have
the position of the Democratic party. such
as it is. They have professed to hold the
doctrine Of Popular Sovereignty, but where
has been the practice of it? 1t has been
theory only; the rractice has been despot-
ism. Three times that party, which pro-
fessed to be the author of Popular Sover-
eighty, has repudiated that doctrine. 1t
repudiated it by refusing to vote for the "a
mendment Of Senator Chase in 1854, by
which he proposed to cut off not only the
interference by Congress in the Territories,
but by the Chief Executive, and thus leave
the people of the Territory in reality to
make their institutions in their own way.
The Democrats voted against the PROPOSE
tion, and thus repudiated Popular Sovcr-
eighty" Again. in voting for the Toombs
bill, they repudiated Popular Sovereign
ty," for that was intended to force Con.
stitution upon the people of Kansas, with
out first having submitted it to their adop-
ton. And again they repudiated that doc
tenden- 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
/ congratulate you, members of the Repub-
lican party on being this day on the record
in favor of that doctrine. During the last
session of Congress, you know. your Rep.
resentatives, with, ut an exception, voted
for this same bill which the Democrats re-
pudiated-the "Crittenden- Montgomery
bill'-which involved and included the
doctrine of Popular Sovereignty. And
what man has apologized to you for his
vote? What man has inquired of you e.
ven whether you approve of that action OF
not? They know you approve of that ac-
ton, and that if they had not thus voted
you would have branded them as traitors to
their party. So this party has recorded it
self as the supporter OF the 'doctrine OF
Popular Sovereignty" in this country.
Is there anything to deprecate in this?
l come now to this question, and 1 find
that there are some in this party who are
still inclined to adhere to the old opinion
that it is the right and duty of Congress to
legislate for the Territories. So far as the
affirmation of the right is concerned, agree
entirely. but concerning the duty do not
agree; for, citizens, by accident or
by Providence, we have found a better
way. Let us see for moment what would
be the effect of pressing this old issue OF
the exclusion of Slavery from the Terrific
ries 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 must go into
these Territories in spite of any law what
ever, and that any law intended to prevent
this will be held to be unconstitutional?-
But, says friend, we will reverse this de-
cision of the Judiciary? But when? How
long? Will not the party become extinct
before that can be accomplished, and will
it not be futile to attempt it?
But even if it be effected, then Of what
practicable effect would law be excluding
Slavery from Territory? Understand that
it is admitted ON all hands that a law ex-
cluding Slavery from any Territory can be
of no binding force. except during the time