New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-09-14

- ret ever NeW.MeIico S,.ermired n make posi-
tive resistance; to resa and say As all the territory
which was slaveholdirR practically when we acquired
Il has be- formed into slsveholdrg States-ss Ten
ressee Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana and
MissouIi-as those States cut off from saveholding
States are to be and have been themselves because
Of the slaveholdipg tradition AID usage under wnicn
thew came TO us demand that the same principie
and rule fball be applied TO Territories when we &C
oujred as Free We demand that hoee Territories a.
ready won from Mexico, and those which may be won
hereafter from her, and those wh shall come 70 US on
the North and South, shall be the homes Of free labor
ard freemen ONLY AND FOREVER Such is the demand
of the Republican party. Great Applsuse
Fellow. citizens, the act which aroused the Amer-
can people they had not been aroused before was
the passage Of what is called the Nsbraska Bal.
great struggle had taken place in 1919 and lo on the
ADMISSION Of Mssouri. The North insisted tina, Ms,
souri, should discard Slavery while the South demanded
che should be admitted as q Slave State. believe
there il no confederate Missour'an oday who does
not realize that Cor gress would have done his State
real kindness had voted as the North wished On this
question. Had Missouri come into the Union free
State her population would now have equaled that
Ohio; hergreat city would have been the second city
OF importance and the third in population Of the cite
ofthe Union. She demanded OF the score OF Popula
Sovereignty, admission Slave Ststs and Congress
a. lsst reluctantly conceded this by majority OF bare
three votes in the House. But they obtained a. q
pledge and comp.ct, that If Missouri thoud be ad
itted as Slave State, all the Territories north and
west Of her should be free only for eyermo'e Iha
was the bargain which admitted Missouri.
When we came to organize Kansas on the west o
Missouri in 1854, then the North Of course claimed
the falflmeDt Of this compact They had paid tor the
eGnsderation there was our bond give Us thst tor
tended OF 10 NEEDLE with the Missouri compact. His
bill, at any rate, did not directly touch it. But Mr.
Dixon, of Kentucky, put in a provso repeating the
Missouri restriction; and Douglas after hesta.ing and
taking position little nearer and nearer once or
twice, finally gave way and admitted into his bill Mr..
Dixons provfo, saying that all Of the old provisions
respecting the Territories should be enforced except
IL certain section Of the act of lSO commonly called
the Missouri Compromise act, which being, he says,
Inconsistent with the principles Of the Compromises OF
1850 and of Popular Sovereignty, is void; that the
people Of that Territory, shall be allowed, or not as
they fit TO have Slaveryit being the true intent
and meaning Of the act neither 10 plant Slavery therein
nor to exclude it thereom, but leave it subject to
the will Of the people.
That is the foundation Of what is the preient Ma
tons Democratic doctrine. 1t is the doctrine of indf
ference Of neutrality, of perfect impartialty between
Liberty and Slavery, in opposition TO the doctrine of
Jefferson and Washington and the modern Republicans,
which that Slavery shonld exist only where Slsv.
cry had previously been legsized or established and
all free territories should be free only evermore. We
stand the old ground and combat the doctrine mis
named Popular Sovereignty, which no man ever heard
Of prior to the letter of Gep Cas- written to Nicholson
in december 1si7 or January, 1913, wherein the doc
trine was first propounded. We stand by the paths;
we walk in the ways Of fathers while the doctrines
propounded on the other eide, however just AMI wise
are certainly new ones. They were unknown to Dem
crats Federalsts Wings Of the earlier days of this
Republic. They were unknown to the whole world
generally. They are modern inventions, and in my
Judgment modern fallscies Let me endeavor to show
wherein their fallacy consists.
In the first place, the authors OF these doctrines
and you may test a doctrine bes, by seeing bow
strictly its authors support 1.-THE authors themselves
shrink from applying their doctrines to new case.
Here s the reviying the African slayetrade. The
new doctrine of oday, in opposition to that Of our
fathers afrms Slavery not to be positive evil, but
local and sectional good. The modern Democracy
doctrine pretty generally everywhere, aud coun-
may be bad thing in the Northern latitude yet in the
tropical South il is good thipg-a benehcent thing;
that you can't work down there except by slaves, aud
cannot make black men work there except by making
them slaves. That is the doctrine. Suppose it true
Then 90 forward. In Florida or Texas, according to
this doctrine, it is benefit for the people to have
slaves. Certainly, and, with the doctrine of Popular
Sovereignty, the people can do as they please.
Slavery is good thing in certain localities. Very
well :" Rnt. say tho people, A" we want ce'ee hero
in Florida and Texas and you cOncede our right TO
Judge for ourselves whether to have not have them
You concede this the ground of Popular Sove-
regnty, and aso admit that Slavery is good thing in
certain localities. Now, then, by what right shal you
confpe in looking round for the slaves You ad-
NIT We want Them and yet confine US to that market
where We have TO pay thousand dollars head when
there is another where we could buy them for hun
bred dollars head" On what principe-this is
Douglass proposition-can you avoid it Nobody
proposes TO make Douglas buy any slaves-although,
believe his children own some in Missssippi-no.
body proposes anybody sha buy slaves, or any State
allow the importation ofthem that does not choose to.
Now, under what right of Popular Sovereignty,
whether of Mr.. Buchansns or Mr.. Douglass plat
FORM do you deny to the people of those States,
importing slaves clandestinelyas they have and will,
themselves, under which they shall import them law.
popular sovereigns of their own States. They say
they want saves. You say they have a right to de-
eide fer themselves. When you allow this that they
have a right to cay whether they shall have slaves
or not; when You have insisted that they shall be
their Own judges and said that in those hot and tropi
cal climates labor can be done only by slaves how do
you turn short corr er and say that they shall only
buy them Of Virginia ard Maryland at one thousand
dollars head, when they can suit themselves much
better at oneeIth the price in an Africa market
How can Douglas say that he will not be candidate
for President at the next National Convention if the
reopeping Of the ssvetrade form a portion of the
platform, when he has, by Popular Sovereignty, af-
fmed by the Nebraska Bill agreed 70 leave the people
free to act for themselves What use to leave them
free If they can have slaves, what use to fix the
ma,ket so high they cannot buy them say the con-
struction Of the popular sovereign ground s that Of
the African slsve-trsde They say 1--WE are in favor
of Popular Sovereignty" Now, let us buy slsves
where we afford TO buy them, rather than send TO
Virginia and buy them at price We cannot afford.
believe that the true and only construction ard the
eontended for when that doctrine shall have been
tabshed as the doctrine OF this tnion-as | trust II
never can be. But when il shall be established and
acqusced in they who uphold it csnno. resist the adj
mission that the slavetrade may be egitima.ey and
lawfully opened, a. il is already clsndespey and Sc
cretly carried on. The Republicans maintain formi-
dable 'front.' that they shall not reduce their doctrine
to practice, and reopen the African slave trade.
Well, then-I hear a great deal of depreciation Of
Slavery agitation. Some men wonder why we cannot
be still about Slavery. Why can let il alone il il
will let me alone; but there have been questions
sprung upon the country continually by the Slave
Power. The annexation Of Texas was Pro.Slavery
NE asure, known TO be such. The repeal Of the Mis-