The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1858-03-11

rejection by the vote oil tue
people Indeed, my only alternative was
to suppress this revolution by the bayo-
net or by advocating the submission OF
the Constitution as above stated, and
pledgiug my best excrtion for the people
of the Territorial Legislature in the then
ensuing October. These pledges. aud
these alone, it is conceded, presented rev.
olution aud civil war
And why should they not now be re-
deemed! For Myself these pledges have
been ,bus far most faithfully maintained
aud they will be redeemed by me, if ue-
ces>ary, with the Last drop OF my life 5
blood, aud to the latest hour Of my exist
cnce. These were pledges well known
to the President and all his Cabinet
They were pledges given by me in good
faith, aud any abandonment OF tbem now
on ny part, after the people had accept
ed aud acted upon them, would be to COW
tr myself with infamy and dishonor.--
Whatever, then, may be the action
of the wavcring, tlmid, or corrupt,
menace aud prescription have no terrors
for me. | vii! continue to tread the path
where conscience and duty call me-, re-
gsrIless Of all consequences or sacrifices,
persoual or political.
Bat were the case now exempt from
these pledges and their consequence, is it
true that the people, in framing State
Constitution, are only to decide the Slave
ry question! Has it come to this, tha.
the people 10 their Sovereignty are to de.
eide only the destiny of such Africans a,
may be in their limits, and not upon all
those far greater rights which concern the
life, liberty, property and happiness of a
free people! Has the african become so
elevated above the free men Of this Union
that they, in their sovereign capacity,
may not decide upon all that concerns
their own government, but only upon the
fate of that sable race that nay be with.
in their boundariesy Aud is it true tha
the people in inchoatc Free States can.
neither ratify nor reject any part of their
State Constitution, but that this can be
done in iuchoate Slave States only, and
then ouly as regards this one particular
institution The Kansas and Nebraska
till declares it 10 be "the true intent and
meaning of this act to leave the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regu
late their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution
of the United States Now the Presi.
dent in his December message admits that
the term people as here used, means
what it says, the people themselves in
their sovereign capacity (as coutradistiu-
guishea from conVentonS) in soting for
or against the ratification of State Con-
,titution. But he says the term "jomes-
tic Institutions, in the plural, means on
ly one institution, namely, that of Slave
ry. But the term their domestic institu-
tious" nost clearly include them al, be-
cause extending in words and letter to all
the Territories Of the Union, whether
bond or free. The President regards
this Kansas and Nebraska bill as au en-
Gbling act, but enabling whom, or what,
or how! Why, enabling the people to
form aud regulate their domestic institu-
tions though a State Constitution. The
word 'J0fm' is here significant. Who
ever spoke of forming the institution OF
Slavery This word most clearly implies
the forming of State Constitution; aud
itit does not mean this, it is not an ena-
bling act, for that is the great object and
purpo-e of such au act. These words,
then, do enable the people to frame
State Constitution, and by which alone
they shall form and regulate their instruc-
nd t,a 4, 81, a.
word people" as here used, means, as it
says, the people themselves, as coutradis-
tinguished from Conventions, by direct
vote for ratification or rejection. This,
then, being an enabling act, an act, as con-
ttrued by the President enabling the peo-
pie to frame a Constitution, this term, the
people cannot have two interpretations, 9
one meaning the people themselves, and !
another also, as the President iusits, Con- ;
vention only. No; these words, the geo !
pie, in that act have but Que Specification {
as applicable to all their domestic insti- G
tGtion7, and it can never be Interpreted !
to mean, as the President would construc
it, in what be calls an enabling act, the
people, so far as regards the question OF
Slavery, and Conventions ouly, as regards E
all other subjects. No; this great act,
deelaratory upon its very face, was inten-
ded to recognize the right of self-Rovern- f
nent in Its broadest and most comprehen-
slye sense, as vested in the people them y
selves, extending to all their domestic in L
in ratifying or rejecting their k
State Constitutions, whose provisions y
could only be known and acted on BY o
them when submitted for their decision !,
by the Convention. And thus il was d
that the Kansas and Nebraska bill was n
of that great fundamental Il
principle of public liberty, embodied in Ii
the Federal Constitution, reserving all h
sovereignty to the people of the several d
States, admitted or inchoste and not az Il
vested in Conventions who possess DO SOW b
ereignty (Which cannot be delegated or "
bat are servants of the people v
only, and not their masters. o
Such Is the true meaning of term De07)lc a.