Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1859-11-04

it is not expedient" to let up on the Sla-
very Restriction; and there the subject
rested forever the Indiana sovereigns
having by this time become sick or
ashamed of their negro-begging. Why
is it, Mr.. Douglas, that we find no allu-
sion to these efforts to evade or subvert
the Ordinance Of 81, and their uniform
failure in your resume of the history of
this subject, Why but because the
facts are at deadly feud with your theo-
ry, and prove it the novel heresy it truly
is. There were statesmen in Congress
in 1927 who would gladly have pro-
cured repeal or suspension Of the Or1i-
nance Of 'S7. so far as it forbade the Ex.
tension Of Slavery; there was not one
so far as can discover. who denied the
right of Congress to preclude such Ex.
tension. The doctrine which denies to
Congress the right to inhibit Slavery in
the Territories had its origin in the por-
plexities Of Presidential aspirant no
longer ago than lS4S. When Office
seekers cease to have special need of it,
it will die the death Of the humbugs, ,and
be buried in their open grave.
You speak of the antagonis,ic doc.
trine which oon6des the guardianship of
Imperial Freedom in the Territories of
the United States to the whole people as
represented in the Congress of the Uni.
ted States rather than to the few thou.
sand of their number who first gain
footing on these Territories as strife.
breeding. fcud-inciting. as between di.
verse sections Of the Union. History
does not sustain this imputation. The
Ordinance Of 81 and the Missouri re.
striction successively secured to the
country long terms Of comparative rest
from Slavery agitation. The Nebraska
bill has given us-what you see. 1t has
distracted not merely the country bnt the
Democratic party. Even you give three
several interpretations of the spir, and
drift of that act. and of the popular
Sovereignty" which it embodes, as held
by different sections of that party. Mr..
Senator allow me to say IN conclusion
that of these diverse interpretations
yours seems to be the most unsatisfac.
tory and irritating. comprehend. | re-
gard with certain respect, the Fire. eat
er who tells me-"The Constitution
guarantees me the ight of taking slay,
into the Territory and holding them
there: demand of Congress such leyis-
latlon as shall render tt.at right impreg.
nable:" trust he comprehends and re.
spects me when | r. spopd: The Con
stitution gives You m right to carry
slavery into the territories; wherefore |
shall endeavor to keep it out. and will
favor no such legislation as you require;'
but how can either of US respect YOU
how can you respect yourself when you
say in effect; "rrae. you Shareholders
have right to fill the Territories with
your slaves but the sqaatter soyereigns
may nnllliy that right by 'unfrisndiy leg
islation, nd you are without remedy"I
Mr. Senator whenever realize that
the Shareholders have a constitutional
right to carry their human chattels into
the Territories and hold them there,
will respect that right in its legitimate
scope and spirit. and not attempt to whit.
tie it away. as you do in your comments
en- the bred Scott Decision. The topic
is grave one; the time is earnest the
people lnteat on facts. and in no mood
to be amused or cajoled by mere words.
think you misconceived alike topic,
time and people, to your own serious
damage. Yours;
HORACE GREELEY,