The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-10-06
POLITICAL DODGING.

POLITICAL DODGING.
1t is impossible to regard Mr.. Douglas in any
other light than as a mere politician of expedi-
ents. His doctrine of popular sovereignty does
not rise to the dignity of principle. 1t is a
mere expedient to evade pressure, for the time
being, on certain point in party politics. Mr..
Douglas, while asserting the impregnability OF
his position, and declaring his determination to
die, if need be, in defending 1.-THE had good
deal to say about this in the Senatorial debate
on Lecompton) has yet carefully provided two
modes of retreat from that position, both OF
which he has distinctly pointed out in his late
utterances in the North. Let us see what they
are. Mr.. Douglas says he advocates the right
of the people of the Territories to determine for
themselves whether they will have Slavery or
not This seems to be clear enough. But he
Immediately turns to the South and says, Now,
don't complain of this. l will show you what
you can do to prevent the people OF the Terri
tories from acting against Slavery. All you
have to do is to refuse to organize the new set
Elements till you are ready to trust them to leg
islate on the question" Mr. Douglas is re-
ported to say this, in so many words, in his late
Northern speeches. In this answer, he is like
one defending fortress in front by stout can
nonade while he sends messenger to inform
the enemy that they can find their way in by
the back gate. Here, for example, are people
at Pixies Peak. Suppose they ask for a Terri
torial Government, for the purpose, among
others, of excluding Slavery. Mr.. Douglas
teaches the South to say, You can't have it."
You will be guilty of unfriendy legislation
towards the patriarchal institution. await till
we can get in las Mr.. Calhoun used to say with
our negroes" Mr.. Douglas does not hesitate
to suggest this expedient to the South, as afford
ing them ample protection against any action
whatever against Slavery in the new settle
ments. And he does it while arguing to the
North that the people of these new settlements
are fully competent to protect themselves
against the blighting influence of Slavery. Is
not this a high style of political lodging? This
we call retreat No. l.
Now for the second. Mr.. Douglas reiterates
the soundness of his position that the people of
the Territories should be allowed TO decide for
themselves whether they will have Slavery or
not. He declares they may do it by " unfriendly
legislation subject only to the Constitution.
The South complains that the Territories must
not be allowed to do by indirection what they
should not do directly. Hear Mr.. Douglas re-
spond-" Mark, gentlemen, what l say. The
Territories may legislate in an unfriendly
way. But that legislation must be according
TO the. Constitution. If the courts decide that
the Territorial legislation on Slavery is uncon-
stitutional, then that legislation cannot stand.
A single sentence of the court brushes it all
away, and Slavery stands untouched by it."
This is the response which Mr.. Douglas makes
70 this objection Of the Sssth, to- unfEisneallsg
courts win decide it to be unconstitutional.
This is Mr.. Douglass own intimation, if we
have seen him correctly reported. This is re-
treat No. 3 And broad, level highway of
escape it is.
Mr. Douglas has then, we say, laid down two
methods of retreat for himself and for his party,
from his mueh-vaunted position of popular SOW
ereignty. In the first place, the Territories
must not be oganized by Congress, if that or
ganization is going to be prejudicial to Slavery
or offensive to Southern leaders. Then, again,
if the Territories are organized, and the people
legslate against Slavery, the courts are to brush
that legislation away with single dash of the
pen, by declaring it unconstitutional.
OF what earthly avail, then, is all Mr.. Doug
lass talk about the people of the Territories de-
Gliding the question of Slavery for themselves?
They are not to be allowed to act, if they are
supposed to be hostile to it; and if they get
chance to act, their action is to be pronounced
invalid by the courts. We should like to ask
if Mr.. Douglass own limitations and sugges-
tons here referred to do not rob his scheme of
excluding Slavery from the Territories by pop
ular hostility of every grain of force and effect?
We submit that his own exposition of popular
sovereignty leaves Slavery in full and unques-
toned possession of every inch of territory now
owned or hereafter acquired by the United
States, with no power in the people of those
Territories to dislodge it from a single foot of
ground anywhere. And this is the view of Sem
ator Toombs, evidently, who contends that there
is no necessity of slave code, for Slavery is
already amply protected in the Territories, and
cannot be touched therein, and who backs
Douglas on all occasions