Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-10-11

least eountenance TO this notion Of popular or an
other kind of s5csreignty IN tie Territories
Some trouble will be saved in this part of the Al
gument, by the fact tia since the first pubIicatio
o. this pamphlet Mr. ouglas denies and repudiate
all cain Of sovereignty for the Territories. H
even says that he never did regard kthem as soveI
elgn His words spoken at Wooster, Ohio and writ
| lea out by himself are these:
Il NEVER cli,aed that territorial governments ,oer
sovereign, Or at The Territories tcere Soreye1a polrerS
| vi course this is not TO be understood as a mcr
naked denial that he had previously used those yer,
words. We have no right TO charge Nr. Dougla
I with adopting the ex ,lOded system of morality
which allows man cover up the truth under an
eq1tiUOqVe We are bound to lake mis- denial fairly
| as meaning, that he never thought the Territories
had the rights and powers, which belong to sovereign
governments Let us see how this assertion will
| stand the test of investigation.
| We do not deny that the article in Harper isFec
| tremely' difficult TO understand. Its uniointed
thoughts loose eXpressiOn and illogical reasoning
have covered it with shadows elou,is and darkness
But we will not apmit that it has meaning at all
1t is scarcely possible To stake the general pur.
pose of the aAthaF. That purpose undoubtedly was
i to prove thar the States and Territories far a.
concerns their internal affairs haze political rights
AMI powers which are precisely equal In fact hr
| declares in so many words. that Pennsylvania and
Kansas are subordinate to the Constitution IL he
| same RIHler Gad to the same erteat. He not only
levels the Territories up to the States but levels the
States down TO the Territores Ii Kansas has slav-
cry by virtue of the Constitution he insists that BY
| the SAM reasoning, Pennsylvania has it too. Now
we know Pennsylvania to be sovereign; and if
Kansas b. Der canal, then Kansas must necessarily
be overeign also. go
But look at Il last sent anee which Is the grand
summary of his whole doctrine:
The principle lGader oar polilieal system is that
ererg distinct political eonsHty loyal to the Consti-
tuition and the Union IS entitled to all the rights, prri-
legss and innlElles Of Sefg0eermsent respect to
the local concerns and internal pOlity subject only
to the Constitution of the United States
Here the States and Territories are placed on
footing of perfect equality There is distinction
made between them Ii the States are sovereign.
so are the Territories. Besides the rightS priyi-
leges, and immunltes." which he describes as per-
tanning to every distinct political community that
Is, to both States and TerritOries) sovereign
rights, and nothing else, Any community which
has the independent and uncOntrollable right OF self
government, with respect TO its local concerns and
internal poIity, must be, qIaOd hoe a sovereign
Again: Mr.. Douglas in his speech at Cincinnati
made so lately as the 9th of September last, used
the following unmistakable language:
Examine the bills and search the records and
''yOV will fnd that the great principle which 9Rler-
rIics those measures the compromise OF 1850 is the
sight of the people Of each Sdts and each Territory
"wHHE A TERRITORY, to DECIDE the slavery ques-
'tion for themselves
Is not this claiming sovereignty for the Terrific
ries? Can tn, slavery question be decided without
legislating upon the right of property, Can sub
ordinate government do that, If the Territories
have power to decide whether man shall keep his
property or not where did the power come from >
Surely not from Congress through the organic acts
They must have it then upon what Mr.. Douglas calls
great principle, and that great principle can be
nothing else than Sovereignty in the Territories
Thus it is seen that Mr.. Douglas makes tour to the
West, and on his way back he contPadcta what he
said aS he went out.
There are but two sides to this eontroversey: The
Territories are either sovereign powers by natural
and Inherent right, else they are political cor
poratiOns. owing all the authority they possess tn
the acts of Congress which create them. Ii Is not
possible to believe that Mr. Douglas wrote thirty
eight columns in Il magazine TO prove the truth of
the latter doctrine. Nobody but himself and his
followers were ever accused of denying it, If he
did not deny it, and plant himself upon the opposing
ground of sovereignty ~ the Territories then there
was no dispute or cause OF division hetWeon him and
the Democratic parry; and he has g0soQ Uenty been
engaged in passing an excitement about nothing; -
trying TO toss the ocean of politics into tempest
without having either feather tn wait a fly to
drown.
But that is not all. Mr.. Douglas has continually
used the rery rord Sovereignty with reference to the
Territories, This Sovereignty in he Territories he has
asserted and resssePted often, that the phrise is
in great danger of becoming ridiculous by the mere
frequency with which he repeats it, For many
months he has not made speech or written letter
for the newspapers on any other subject. 1t heads
his elaborate article in Harper; 1t is vOCferated into
the public from the stump; and it stares at
in great capitals from the hand-bills which call the
people to his meetings. Unless it be acknowledged.
he predicts he hopeless division of the party and
even threatens to refuse its nomination for the
Presidency. Now, all at once, the subject matter Of
the whole controversy Is admitted to be nOnenity,
He ''checks ms thunder in mid-vOlloy," and owns
that there is sovereignty in Territory any more
than in a British colony. Other persons may have
ridden their hobbies hard as Mr.. Douglass but
aimee the beginning OF the world, no man ever dis
mounted so suddenly.
Sovereignty in the Territories" of which we
have heard much is generally, if not always
coupled BY Mr.. Douglas with the prefix of 'POD.LGT
This last word appears to be used for the nero SAX
of the sound and without any regard whatever u
the sense. 1t does not mean that the people OF in-
habitants OF the Territories have rany supreme
power independent of the laws, or above the regu-
larly constituted legal authorities. They cannot
meet together, count themselves, and say: we are
many hundreds, or many thousands. and we
must therefore be Obeyed; the law is in our voice
and not in the rules which our Government has
made to control us Something like this view was
vaguely entertained in times when the LeCOmptOn
constitution was opposed, But that is gone by.
Nature reflection has left HObOcrdcy without a de-
fender. Nobody now insists that the right TO make
annu laws and constitutions can be exercised in
voluntary mass-meetings or at elections unauthOr-
lied by law. Mr. Douglas himself says: 1T can
only be exercised whore the inhabitants are SUFFICIENT
ia constitute qnre7lHet, and capable OF peTOrmiaT
lis udyiGns functions fd tIdies-a fact to be ascer-
tanned and determined by Congress-" The sover-
eighty, then, is in the government II it be anywhere
But Mr. Douglas saws il is not there; and he Is
right. That being the case, where ID it:
When Mr.. Douglas III his speech at Wooster was
repudiatng and denying the doctrine Of sovereignty
in the Terri0ries, and TeSuning his old position,
that they are not sovereign powers, it would have
been well to fall back upon something little
iHteligiblc than his reports to the Senate his an
ti-Lecompton etser TO Philadelphia Here is the
way he describes sovereignty in his report Of 1856:
"The sovereignty of Territory remains IL! obey
aHce, suspended IN The Uied States, ia trast for the
people until they shall he admitted into the Union
State"
What do these words mean and in what possible
way can they help us to knowledge of the matter
nnder consideration! Abeydnce is good law French
and signifies the peculiar condition of after
one tenant has died and before his successor is com
peent to take it, But what application it have
even by analogy, to sovereignty which never ex-
isted II seems, too, that this sovereignty rs
pended in the United States; that is hung dependent
from something in the United States and not indie
pendent like every other sovereignty under heaven
But the most marvellous part OF the business is that
one government which Is sovereign is represented
trustee ot the sovereignty of another govern
ment which is admitted not to be sovereign This is
the talk of man who has too much learning
These technical terms of the common law were in
vented by English conyeyancers and real property
lawyers for the purpose OF expressing the artificial
relations which men sometimes bear TO lands tene-
ments, and hereditaments; but they are wholly in
applicable TO such a subject as the sovereignty of
State nation. We might as well call territorial
sovereignty, contingent remainder, executOry
devise, or q special foe tail .
There is some confusion of ideas on another sub
iect Mr.. Douglas and his disciples ascribe to GER
tain democrats TO the President among others) the
belief thatthe Constitution establishes slavery in the
Territories and to sustain this accusation, they
quote from message in which the EXISTENCE Of
slavery in the Territories By virtue Of the Constellation
is asserted on the authority of the Supreme Court
Now are in the wrong, if the expression that a
thing ersts by virtue Of the Constitution be equiva
lent saying that the Constitution has established it.
There is not only substantial, but wide and most
obvious difference. The Constitution does not es
tabsh Christianity in the Territories but Chris
tianty exists there by virtue of the Constitution
because when Christian moves into Territory he
cannot be prevented from taking his religion along
with him. nor he afterwards be legally molested
for making its principles the rule of his faith and
practice,
We have said, and we repeat, that man does not
forfeit his right of property in slave by migrating
him IN titla which