The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-02-25
The Grrat Senatorial Debate on Slavery
MIR. Douglas mud che Denncrn.Y.

The protracted, spirited and suggestive debate
on slavery in the Senate on Wednesday last has
lifted the curtain upon the Southern President
makers of the democratic party, and has pretty
broadly disclosed their purposes ON the slavery
question in reference to Mr.. Douglas and his
followers. The very essence of the debate is
the population Of Mr.. Douglas by the Southern
leaders of the party, and the rejection of his
avorite hobby of territorial popular sovereignty.
The Presidential Specification of these proceed
Dgs is simply this that the Southern demo
cratic leaders concerned have firmly taken their
ground that nothing short of candidate at.
tacbed to Mr. Cahoun's doctrine of territorial
Congressional sovereignty shall pass through the
crucible of the Charleston Convention.
This policy unquestionably involves the shelly
ing of Mr. Douglas the segregation of the Nvrti-
ern democracy from the Charleston camp, aud the
reduction of the whole strength Of that Coaven
ton to the south eide of Mason and Dixon's line.
We have no belief in the constitutionality or
consistency Of territorial popular sovereignty.
While Congress dictates the boundaries of Ter
ritory and prescribesits fundamental law of Or
under the authority of Congress, appoints the
Territorial executive and judicial officers, aud
gives them their instructions, it is absurd to
talk of such thing as territorial popular sove-
reigDty. There is no such thing. There can be
no such thing, except through surrender Of the
supreme authority assumed and exercised by
Congress, from the beginning of the government
down to the present day
The popular sovereignty of the Kansas.Ne-
braska bill was but mischievous Congressional
concession for electioneering purposes True, it
contributed to the election of Mr.. Buchanan in
| 1856, because the conservative people of Penn
sylyania were satisfied that the people of Kansas
haa been given the power to adopt constitution.
with or without slavery, in the power to "regu
late their domestic institutions in their own way,
| subject only to the constitution of the United
States, But this constitutional reservation, re-
garded only as verbiage them has since become
| the paramount abstraction. The bred Scott de-
cison, since the election of Mr.. Buchanan, has
made sad work with the theory of squatter sove
reignty; and Southern politicians, thoroughly
| disguised with the result of this sort of sove-
reignty over the slavery question in Kansas, are
resolved to have no more Of it. We repeat, too,
that upon this matter, as a legal and constitu-
| tional issue, these Southern men are right.
There is no popular sovereignty in Territory,
save that which may be granted from time to
time, in the discretion of Congress
But alas! here comes the rub. The popular
concession in the case of Kansas has done
its work among the Northern democracy,
and its abandonment now involves the loss of
this division of the party. Unquestionably
this will be the result, If, in addition to
| the reputation of squatter sovereignty,
the party supporting the Charleston nominee in
| 1860 shall be required to stand to the newly
preached Southern policy Of Congressional inter-
vention to maintain and protect the institution of
slavery in the Territories. There is much in this
debate of Wednesday to justify the conclusion
| that this is to be the exact issue between the
! Southern and the Northern democracy Congress
sional legislation for the protection of slavery in
the Territories, or popular sovereignty over that
subject
The Kansas-Nebraska BILL it appears, from the
explanation of Mr.. Hunter, was an ingenious
party device or compromise for STAYING off this
very issue. 1t has served its purpose, and as
with all such experiments of electioneering
trickery, it has done world of mischief to all
| parties concerned. Mr.. Buchanan was opposed
| to the whole thing; but, the scheme having
passed. he accepted it with his nomination, as the
| law and as settlement. The squatter seve-
regnty disorders which eliminated in the Lee
compton constitution were the natural points of
this Congressional law but, as that constitution
was the emanation of the law and the lawful
Territorial authorities the President had no alter
native than its acceptance. Through the resist
ance of Mr. Douglas and his followers, that consti
tuition was referred back to the people of Kansas,
and they rejected it. In vndication of his course
| upon this question, Mr.. Douglas appealed to the
democracy Of Illinois, and they have reelected
him to the Senate The late elections in all the
other Northern States, in which anti Lecompton
was confined to the opposition, were all carried
by the opposition.
Now, the question arises, what will be the fate
of the remnants of the Northern democracy,
with the formal rejection of Douglas and his
popular sovereignty hobby by the Southern die
tators of the party? Mr.. Douglas and his sup
perters of squatter sovereignty, 1t is substan-
TALLY decreed, will have no place in the Charles
ton Convention. This Decree therefore, will,
most probably, confne the Convention to a
Southern man and Southern party; and then,
in addition to the anti-slavery republican party,
and separate constitutional opposition party,
we may expect a separate Northern democratic
popular sovereignty party in 1860. At all
events, upon one Of the most Improbable, barren
and impracticabe slavery distractions of the day,
the Southern leaders of the democracy have pro-
nounced against Mr.. Douglas. But there is no
hinching on his part. He maintains his ground.
He has chosen his course. And between the
constitutional position Of the South on the sub