The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-08
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER UPON
MR.. DOUGLAS.


azine article of Mr.. Douglas at considerable
length, and while its manner is courteous and
kind, it declares that the position of Mr.. Doug
las is more obnoxious and dangerous to the
South than that of Senator Seward. After giving
praise to the Illinois Senator for his opposition
to the Lecompton fraud, it proceeds as follows:
Since then, we have found Mr.. Douglas
venturing upon another field of discussion, on
the merits of which we are Obliged to separate
from him, indeed to stand in uncompromising
difference, on point also involving the ques-
ton of State equality and the entire Slavery
question, in the phase which it has finally as
sumed AS explained with sufficient explicit
ness IN his last publication, the position assert
ed by Mr.. Douglas now is, that the residents of
a Territory may rightfully and legally, through
the action of a Territorial Legislature, exclude
the introduction of slave property into Terri
tory, or abrogate the right to hold slaves al
ready introduced and that neither the Con-
gress, the Executive, nor the Judiciary of the
United States can rightfully intervene to pro-
tect slave property from such hostile action of
mere Territorial authorities.
As we have already repeatedly urged upon
the attention of our readers, this doctrine is
even more practically and effectively subver-
sive of the constitutional rights of shareholders,
than is the doctrine maintained by Mr.. Seward
and his adherents of the Black Republican
party. Mr.. Seward holds that Congress may
rightfully exclude slave praperty from the Ter
ritories Mr.. Douglas contends that this power
resides in the local authorities of each Terri
tory.
So far, then, as the great question of prin-
ciple involved is concerned, there is no material
difference between Mr.. Douglas and Mr.. Sew
ard. Both deny the inalienable right of the
citizens of each State to enjoy, on territory
common to all the States, every species of prop
erty which any citizen may lawfully hold with
in the limits of any one of the Safes Mr.. Sew
ard attributes the power to abrogate this right
to a great Federal Legislative body, where the
attempt would be met with the strenuous oppo-
stion of full body of Southern representatives,
whose action and elaboration are constant sub
Jects of watchful attention and jealous com
ment to the whole people of the Union. Mr..
Douglas attributes the same power to isolated
and obscure local authorities, among whom the
shareholders of the Union may be altogether
excluded even from partial representation,
whose members and constituencies are com
paratively irresponsible.
obnoxious in theory with that of Mr.. Seward,
and much more easily reduced to practical
adoption.
Even here, however, we are careful to avoid
all injustice to Mr.. Douglas. When he partially
announced his views on this question, during
the last session of Congress, we enormously re-
garded them as the expression of a new con-
vlctlon. Further inquiry satisfies us that the
distinguished Senator has, for the last nine
years, manifested a certain degree of consistent
adherence to the same doctrine which he now
so explicitly advocates
In his speech in the Senate in 1850, and
in his subsequent speech delivered at Chicago,
during the agitation of the Kansas Nebraska
controversy, Mr.. Douglas expressed substantial
ly the same theoretical opinion contained in his
asst publication.
1t is true that this theoretical consistency is
much impaired by the action of the Senator
from Illinois. By his course with regard to
Utah, by the provisions of the Kansas Nebraska
act, regulating the most minute details of the in
ternal government of the Territories if we
are not mistaken, by his own motion, made in
the Senate, to repeal certain Pro-Slavery acts
OF the Territorial Legislature of Kansas--Mr
Douglas has directly denied his own theoretical
opinion, that Congress cannot intervene to cor.
rect Territorial Legislature in matters apper-
tanning to the internal government of Terri
tory. These matters we will discuss more fully
in a subsequent article. We do not refer to
them for the purpose of trumping up the vulgar
charge of dishonest inconsistency, so frequently
hurled at prominent statesmen. We only de.
sire to notice the undeniable fact that however
sincere Mr.. Douglas may be in the formation
and advocacy of his theory, it is so palpably un-
sound that he has not even been able to con-
form his own political conduct to its dictates.
similar reason, doubtless, must be refer
10 IN vnla al E.
Mr.. Douglass last publication, to the really
able State papers and dscourses of which he is
the distinguished author. This last production
bears no stamp of eminent craftsmanship 1t
is crude, illogical, and deficient in precision.
We are obliged to look to the middle, and not
to the end, to discover its real intent for the
conclusion which it apparently announces is
mere generality, which leaves the point of con-
troversy altogether undecided"
The Enquirer complains that Mr. Douglass
essay is copyrighted, and insists that it should
be disseminated broadcast over the country,
and particularly over the South, for the follow
ing reasons:
His essay is nothing less than an invasion
of their most vital domestic and political inter
ests-a direct denial of their constitutional
rights. 1t is their right, then, to be fully ad-
vised-to be enabled to read at once for them.
selves. We urgently insist that the embargo
now laid on public information shall be prompt
ly removed"
The Enquirer concludes its first assault upon
Mr.. Douglas as follows:
This is the doctrine of Mr.. Douglass essay,
fully expressed. So far as the practical inter
ests of the South are concerned, it is much
worse doctrine than that of Mr.. Seward. The
Democracy of Virginia steadfastly refuse to yield
to either Nevertheless, we do not hesitate to say
that we would prefer immediate and uncondi-
tional submission to Mr.. Douglass doctrine, to
that policy of time-serving compromise which
would result in the same thing, and which adds
duphcity of Interpretation to abject submission,
by first admitting the constitutional rights of
the South, and then contemptuously deriding
them as dead doctrines and barren abstrac-
TONS No man an Virginia can be found bold
enough, nOC, to Advocate Mfr. Douglass doc
trine through the press or on The hustinqs. No.
The faction which we have to contravene dares
not recommend to the Democracy of Virginia
an open remuneration of their constitutional
rights. This voice, which whispers disorganiza.
ton In our midst, only suggests that we shall
ignore our rights that we shall stoop to the
posture OF a conquered people, and still main
tain the empty semblance of political consider
alton, by clinging to the skirts of Free-Soilism,
feebly protesting an agreement to disagree with
dictates which it, nevertheless, imposes upon
our obedience. ,.I
!" Let Kr. Douglass last essay be published
to the people Of the South, and not one Southern
STATE a0M consent to yield han, single cote at
Charleston. The only danger now is, that CON-
promise men may slip in, here and there, by
sufferance, to misrepresent the will of scatter
ed constituencies creating a division
among Southern delegates, to result in an en-
tire dismemberment of the Democratic nartun