The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-07-21
TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY
WHERE DOES IT RESIDE? 81

The fact cannot be disguised that there is q
strong disposition on the part of a large branch
of the Republican party to abandon the distinc
tive constitutional principle upon which the
party was called into existence. That princi.
pie is the declared right of Congressional inter
vention for the exclusion of Slavery from the
Territories. A majority of the Republican
State Conventions which have been held during
the present year have receded from the asser-
ton of this principle, if by concert of action.
We believe that Kansas set the example, which
has been followed in quick succession by Penn
sylvania, Ohio, Maine, and California. The
resolutions adopted by these State Conventions
take decided ground against the extension Of
Slavery, they negative the Democratic asser-
ton that the Constitution carries Slavery into
the Territories, they denounce the proposed
slave code, the revival of the slave trade, and
the bred Scott decision; but they omit to as
sert the right of Congressional prohibition of
Slavery and by implication the Kansas reso-
lutions seem to deny the right. The Maine
resolutions are more guarded, and concede
popular sovereignty so far as is consistent with
the preservation of Freedom proviso, by the
way, which is fatal to the idea of sovereignty
1t is evident that our Republican friends
have been betrayed into this virtual abandon
ment of the Philadelphia Platform, not from
any new lights which have been thrown upon
the subject, but by the hope of conciliating and
securing the cooperation of the disafected
Douglas Democrats. We think they have made
great mistake. The Douglas Democrats are
of three kinds, viz those whose sympsthies and
feelings are with the Republicans, but who,
from old party attachments, or from timidity,
are reluctant to cut loose from their old asso-
ciates, and join the party of Freedom. This
wing of the Douglas Democracy is entitled to
respect, although, unfortunately, it is relatively
small. Second those who 90 for the success
of the party, but care nothing for Slavery, one
way or the other. This branch includes a LARGE
majority of Mr.. Douglass friends in the free
States, with Mr.. Douglas at their head. Third,
those cool-headed Southerners and friends of
Slavery who see the folly Of an ultra Pro- la-
very platform, from its tendency to disorganize
the party in the free States, and strengthen Re
publicanism. This class of Douglas men are
as Pro Slavery as the fre-eaters themselves
1t embraces in its ranks such men as Mr.. Pryor
of Virginia, Mr.. Forsyth of Alabama, the
States newspaper in this city, the Richmond
Examiner, and probably Mr.. Hunter, the able
and ambitious Senator from Virginia. These
Southern Douglasites are not the friends of
d" popular sovereignty" and they deny that Mr.
Douglas holds to that position. They call them
selves Neutrality-suspicious.; but insist, at the
same time, that under the Constitution, as in
terpreted by the bred Scott decision the right
to hold slaves in the Territories is indefeasible
Such, then, is Douglasism, in all its
phases. Mr.. Douglas is himself no friend to
popular sovereignty; for he admits the validity
of the bred Scott decision, which in express
terms declares that the Constitution carries
Slavery into the Territories, and that neither
Congress nor the people, acting in their Terri
torial capacity, can exclude the institution.
The Anti-Slavery Democrats, who are sim
cerely opposed TO the extension of Slavery, are
in favor of more genuine sort of popular sove-
reignty. They may make, and we fear have made, |
admissions fatal to the idea of sovereignty-they
nay have admitted the authority of the Su- |
Dreme Court and its bred Scott decision but |
hey are in earnest i'll their opposition to the /
Slavery extending policy of the Administra- |
lon, and will cooperate in efforts to defeat it,
This small wing of the Democracy is. entitled |
o our respect. We should be glad to see them
cOnciliated, if it can be done without sacrifice |
Of principle; but we are unwilling to conciliate |
any class of men, large or small, at that price. |
We will not assume that our friends in the |
State Conventions above referred to have aban- |
Toned the distinctive principle of Republican
Sun, but, in our Judgment, they have made a |
grave error in emitting to reassert the power |
IF Congressional Intervention for the exclusion |
IF Slavery from the Territories.
In the first place, the doctrine of the absolute
sovereignty of the people of Territory is an |
absurdity The Territories belong to the Uni
ed States. They cannot be settled or cult
rated until the Federal Government grants per
mission. The settlers cannot go in and take
of the lands, and are not permitted i
o do so. Congress regulates the terms upon
which the lands may be taken up. Congress
ells them at its own5price and makes reserva-
ions at its discretion, Congress organizes the
Territory, gives it form of government, an
points its Governor and judges, and may, at its
discretion, alter the organic act. In truth,
here is not an attribute of sovereignty belong
ng to the Territories and it is mere dema-
which asserts the contrary Policy
dictates the proprioty of giving to the people of
he Territories the right of local selfgovern-
nent. But the right is given. 1t is not inhe-
ent, for the reason that the Territories are the
property of the whole Union, and not
If any handful of people who may choose to 90
ma settle on them.
Our first objection to the idea of sovereignty
n the Territories, therefore, is its palpable alb
'urdity 1t was the invention of demagogues,
Intended to suit an emergency. There is some
hing in it which at first blush aatters the peo-
pie, and seems to chime in with the popular no
ions of liberty but when examined, it is found
TO be utterly inconsistent with the Constitution.
and, if acted upon, fruitful of evils and contra
lictions.
It the Territories are sovereign, they owe no
allegiance to the United States They NAV set
lp for themselves, or join foreign State.
They may secede from the Union, or nullify its
avs. They may establish Mormonism with
oolygamy as the cornerstone of their social
abric, and there is no help for it, because, ac-
sOrding to the theory of popular sovereignty.
Congress has no power to legislate for them.