The Kansas herald of freedom. [volume] (Wakarusa, Kan. Territory) 1854-1860, 1858-11-06

came a piece of tyranny that endangered
its own perpetuity. Under that dispen-
sation it was highly fit for Congress to
claim supremacy over all the inhabitants
of the territories, with a right to dictate
to them their peculiar institutions. Thus
was born the Ordinance of 'S7, but when
the Constitution came to be the supreme
law Of the land, this ordinance, made
under q previous rule. was superseded and
was no longer a law. 1t is true, that a
specific act of Congress did revise some
portions of it, but not that section refer
rig to the prohibition of involuntary ser
vitude. And when itwas in part restored
thirty years afterwards, in the act admit
ting Missouri as State, both Madison
and Jefferson denounced the measure as
violation of the federal Constitution,
which secured to all its subjects their
primitive rights. In letter to Mr.. Mon
roe, Mr.. Madison says, relative to the
restrictive clause, Though for myself, I
must own that have always leaned to
the belief that the restriction tUas not ,cithin
the true scope Of the Constitution" Mr..
Jefferson said about the same time, in a
letter to Mr.. Madison, "This Missouri
question, by geographical line of divi-
sion, is the most portentious one 1 have
ever contemplated" He said, also, in
another letter: IAN abstinence, too, from
this act of power, wo1ld remove the jeal-
ousy excited by the undertaking of Con-
gress to regulate the condition of differ
ent descriptions of men composing State.
This certainly is the exclusive right of
every State, which nothing in the Constitu-
tion has taken from them, and given to the
general government. Could Congress, for
example, say that the non-freemen of
Connecticut should be freemen, and that
they shall not emigrate into any other
State?''
Such were the views of the authors of
the Ordinance of 1887, upon the subject
of intervention as expressed in 1920,
therefore Mr.. Thayer can rightly claim
them as his endorsers. "a citizen of
Kansas" wishes to drag them in, now, as
authority against the doctrine of popular
rights. What obsolete or absurd interdict
Was ever promulgated, that has not claimed
the sanction of these historic fathers?
Again, turn back to the opening para
graph in the article of our astute "Citi-
zen" where he says, "The popular sove-
reignty of Mr.. Douglas has been justly
denounced as 'swindle,' for pretending
to be that which it was not. But if it had
not been 'swindle,' it would have been
an absurdity." That is, if it had been
just what it pretended to be, It would
have been an absurdity. Now, without
wishing to palliate one jot of that noun
tain of infamy that rests upon the politi-
cal character of Stephen A. Douglas, and
seemingly overshadows all his good deeds,
/ purpose to answer the above extract by
, quoting from the speech of this same
Citizen" made in New York city, in the
spring of 1856. At meeting in the
Tabernacle, on the evening of March 9th,
} attended by about fifteen hundred persons,
the gentleman is made, by the reporters
of the New York Times, to say:
ale did not propose to enter into any
! detailed statement of the inroads of the
T border rufians, but preferred to discuss
the cause which has been pursued by the
southern settlers of Kansas; those who
t had not seen fit to unite with the border
l rufians in their assaults upon the Free
State men. He was himself southern
man. All the associations of his life had
been Southern, and he had no desire to
say anything to the detriment Of the
l South. On the question of State rights,
g the South is strong; but, when the South
becomes the aggressor, what can she expect
but resistance? As Southern man, he
: was welded to the doctrine OF State Sove-
1 | reignty, as the fundamental principle Of
I our National structure-that every State
! was an individual and distinct sovereignty,
and entitled to govern itself and provide
1 its own institutions. Believing in this
1 doctrine, he had left his native city Of
e Baltimore to make his home in Kansas
But when he arrived there, he found that
| it was the aim Of Missouri to violate the
integrity of Kansas. As Southern man
Il he resisted to the last this daring and
V unscrupulous attempt at tsurpation. A
!. a Democrat, also, in order to preserve thu
great. principle of the Kansas Nebrasks
. act, to endorse lis observance, he felt i'm.
It PEELED to sever all connection, with those
Q who came in from Missouri, and to &c
q heart and hand with the resistants. As .
=, Southern man, and as Democrat, there.
fore, he had acted. The aggressors came
: into the State with military force. The
t Free-State men determined that if tbs
n obnoxious institutions were fastened upor
them, it would be IL spite Of all the op.
' position they could make. They pledged
81 to this, as their fathers did before them
III their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
d honor. This resolution they have since
adhered TO. They proceeded to establish
q law for themselves. As their father
5 acted before them, they proceeded to thu
d / organization of Governmental Gov
g ernment which is now in the full tide o.
successful experiment, and the State q
Kansas will present herself for admission
" to the glorious sisterhood of States. Shall
y we not receive her? Shall the petty
9 schemes of politicians prevail? Shall thu
integrity of this Union be impeiled Il
subserve the purpose Of ambitious mem
: ] think not. / think that the freemen o.
: Kansas will find that support and sncour.
: asement they need" So So 1a
: @Plaee this aud that together and
4 have no comments to add, upon the gen.
i eral subject. That allnsien however t.
, our Free State men. as having proceeded
$ to establish law for themselves; 10 thu
Q organisation. of a government. a theil