The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-03-17
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.
DUPLICITY OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK DEMoc
RACY.

DUPLICITY OF THE SOUTHERN BLACK DEMoc-
RACY.
Five years ago the reign of popular sover-
eighty was inaugurated by the passage OF the
Kansas Nebraska bill. The great argument IN
favor of that measure was the assumption that
the people Of the Territories have the same
right to make their own laws, and choose their
own institutions, that the people OF the States
have. Mr.. Douglas, the author of the bill,
" rang the changes" upon these popular catch
words, while Southern Senators and Pro-Sla-
very audiences made the Senate Chamber re-
sound with applause. The fact was pointed
out at the time, that the new doctrine was con-
trary to the deliberately expressed views OF Mr.
Calhoun; but all such suggestions were drowned
in the clamor for = the right of the people OF
the Territories TO selfgovernment-" The au-
thor of the bill, with a sneer at the abolition
fanatics" inquired what there was in the char
acter of the negro, which entitled him TO ex-
emption from Territorial legislation The
Territories, said Mr.. D., possessed the power of
making laws affecting all the relations of white
men to each other, such as guardian and ward,
parent and child, master and apprentice; then
why, he demanded, should they not have the
right to dispose of the negroes? Southern
Senators saw that these shallow and heartiess
sophistries were calculated 10 impose on class
Of minds which could not be reached by d.
rect appeal in behalf of Slavery extension, and
for this reason they were content to remain 81
lent, or barely to intimate dissent from certain
logical differences which they foresaw might be
drawn from the doctrine Of popular sovereignty.
They had remote suspicion that it might re-
suit, as broadly stated by Mr.. Douglas, in ma
king free as well as slave States and in their
private conversations they agreed to sustain
the Illinois Senator, irih the mental reservation,
that popular sovereignty was not to interpose
any obstacle to the extension of Slavery. The
people of the Territories were to be left "per-
fectly free" to choose their own institutions for
themselves, provided they choose Slavery; but
if they choose to enact laws against Slavery,
they are estopped by the Constitution, which
secures ito every citizen the right to go into
the Territories with his property"
Mr.. Hunter, of Virginia. admits this sub
stantially in his remarks on the 23d nit. He
says:
Il differ from the Senator from Illinois in
regard to the bill, the history Of its inception,
and what was intended by it. As | understand
it. we stood in this position the Southern Sen
ators. | believe, almost without an exception,
who spoke upon that question: know did.
for one, as j have always done from the time
Il, IL,
tanned that the South had the right, under the
Constitution, of protection of this property in
the Territories on the other hand, Senators
from the free States denied that right. None
Of them rOuld rofe 10 gre 10 us; Int there
icere a portion Of the Northern Democracy rho
sef ss g aS & 4 s cels s s ~ e rs r.
mediately drawn, which left this right TO the
Territories to legislate for the prohibition Of
Slavery in allegiance. 1t neither affirmed nor
disatiirmed the power of the Territorial Legis-
iature to legislate upon this subject of Slavery;
but it provided very carefully and cautiously
that any question arising out of it might be re
ferred TO the Judiciary.
"The case then stood thus whilst the South
ern men maintained on one side land | was
amongst them that they had the right 70 the
protection OF their property under the COnstltu-
tiUn those from the free States maintained the OPP
pJ,'te opinion. There cDuid hare been no dc-
cord betIceeR them On that point Int the South
cyh g,e,, nth some oLjecfjoR and reluctance ia
order 10 horjaqnize, did agree rs tie only mode
Of getting tie Missouri SpmDromiSe repealed, il
the Territorial Legislature attempted to exercise
the power. that the court should decide; and
this they could do with perfect consistency, be-
cause they provided That whatever powers were
delegated to the Territorial Legislature should
be exercised under the Constitution.
Now. sir. say il never was understood, 50
far as / had anything 10 do with the bill, by the
Southern men who maintained the class Of
opinions Of which ! am speaking, that they
we're comforting on the Territorial Legislature
the absolute power to deal with this subject.
They did not, bat they were secured to vote
for bill which wOIli qFgan!ze Territorial
Legislature which should leave this question in
abeyance. and this bill decided nothing pat
only provided that the question should 20 to
the courts, to be decided under that iurisdio-
ton"
These parsgrayhs from the remarks of Mr..
Hunter are sufficient to sho~ the iesuitical du-
Plicity of the Southern supporters Of the Kansas
Nebraska bill. They sat silent, and listened to
the popular dicta,ion of Mr.. Douglas in behalf
of popular sovereignty" because they believed
that those harangues were necessary TO recon-
Gle the Northern mind to the repeal Of the Mis-
souri Compromise. They made no indignant
remonstrance, or threatened to read Mr. Doug
las out Of the party on the contrary, they gave
him their unqualified applause, and protested
to repose in him the most unbounded confidence,
as leader and champion of Slavery.
II 10 hv of rap,orl n
Illustrative of the bad faith of the Southern
friends of the Nebraska Kansas b;ll, that after
| applanding Mr.. Douglas in unmeasured terms
while the bill was still pending, and its passage
doubtful, although be then laid down the doc
trine of popular sovereignty in the most unqual
| fed terms, they now denounce him for very
! feeble assertion of the doctrine, subject 10 til,
| Dred Scott decision. When that principle was
| first proclaimed, tho decisions of the Supreme
Court were anything but favorable to the con.
stitutional theories on which that case was de
cided. The prevalent opinion among states
men and jurists had been, that Slavery is local
institution, which nothing short of positive leg
isahon cap.establish in any State or Territory
1t was under such circumstances that Mr. Doug
las, while laboring TO repeal the Missouri Com
promise, and advocating the measure on the
ground that its abrcgstion woRd confer upon
the people of the Territories the same rights OF
selfgovernment that are possessed by the States.
and particularly Nth reference to iSlareyy that
he received the universal applause of the domi-
nant party in the South. The same party. now
that the repeal is accomplished, and nothing re-
mains but to put the boosted popular sovereign