The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1859-09-02
Democratic Popular sovereign

Democratic Popular Sovereign
~,
Rssolusi, That the Democracy Of SEN
eca County endorse. as fAoy altpays here
done. the principle Of popular sovereign
" na announced IN the Kansas-N Nebraska
bill, and approved and cmnciated In the
platform Of thc Democratic party adopted
BY the National Convention at Cincinnati
in is66.-Dsm. Platform.
Pray, tell US, when did this become a
democratic doctrinei Was Il in 1913,
when Judge RANurY, the present demo-
cratic nominee for Governor, wrote his
famous Wilmot Proviso lottcri Was Il
as late us 1859, when the Ohio Democra-
cy resolved in favor Of the "restrictlon''
and "hnal eradication" Of Slavery. MOI
this ncw-fangled doctrine was not dream
cd Of them. Il was invented by stephen
A. Douglas in 1854, incorporated In the
Kansos-Ncbraska Bill and made an excuse
for repeating the Missouri Compromise,
renewing the agitation Of tho Slavery
question and entuiling upon the country
all the evils which followed Prior to
that time, the constitutional power Of
Congress over slavery In the territories
was recognized by every President, from
Washington down, and the U. 8. su-
prcmo Court had uniformly 80 decided
Il was recognized as late as Preslden,
Polk's time, when he signed the bill for
the organization Of Oregon Territory
But these modern saUaas would have ul
believe that the fathers Of the Constitu-
ton and the Union were oil fools and
that they did not understand the chOrao-
ter and scope ofthe institutions they were
founding. They would have us reverse
the uniform practice Of the Government
for more than frty years and substitute
therefor this now-fanglcd doctrine Of
Popular Sovereignty.
But the people are not to be guileduny
longer by the cry ofPopular Sovereignty.
They have seen too much Of IL practical
workings in Kansas and elsewhere. II
was invented solely for the purpose Of
making Kansas slave state, and this
having failed, Il has become about obso.
lete at the Soutbi but II is still clung to
despalringly by demugogues at the North
in the vain hope Of again humbugging the
people.
The South nre more honest--they open
ly rcpudiate Il and admit Il 10 be an ex'
ploded humbug, consequently they have
abandoned il a. impractiouble and arc
now clamoring for Slave Code.
Those, who shrek the loudest for Pop.
ulU Sovereignty, are the very one'
who practically repudiate Il. There Il
not democrat In Seneca county, in goot
standing, who dare assert, to-day, thai
the people of a territory have unlimited
control over the subject Of slavery. The
lictum Of Judge TASEY in the Dred Scot
case is now universally received by the
party, us democratic gospel That de-
oision declares that shareholders have 4
right to take their slaves into any ter
ritory Of the United States and hold then
there, under the protection of the Consti
tuition, tho sume as other property. Il
there democrat who will deny this
Well then, ir the right to hold them there
is constitutional right, how are they tC
bc deprived of fiti Popular Sovereignty
democrats answer, by "unCriendly logis
lutiou.' But how arc you going to leg
islSto away constitutional right III
; be true, (Which Republicans ofoourse de
ny) that the Constitution recognizes slu
very, how are you going TO enforce al
unconstitutional lawl This would Il
practical notification, win the demoo
raoy Of Seneca county be found wNrrinl
against the Constitution Yet the part,
J by its present position, Is driven to th
alternative. They must either deny tina
the Constitution recognizes and protect
slavery in the territories, thus admitting
all that Republicans claim, or, Il il does
tlat 10 interfere wih u could Be diree
violdiiOa Of hs Constitution. Such Il
the ludiorous position the democracy o
Seneca county are placed in, by their lead
ers. Let them choose whichever horn o
the dilemma they will.
Southern democrats have the virtue o
consistency at least. They admit thO
the Constitution recognizes and protect
slavery In the territories, but they den.
that constitutional right can be legislO
ted away by any power. Hence the!
claim Legislative protection for this spe
cios, Of property, the same as any other
Granting the premises, we cannot &c,
how the conclusion can be avoided.