The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-22
FALSE LIGHTS.

the spokesman, tayor MIR. douglass claims to
the Presidency. Mr.. Forney himself has grown
quite eloquent, on occasion, in his behalf Now,
Mr.. Douglas is entitled TO the credit of having
made stand against the slaveholding aristoc-
racy at an opportune moment. As for his mo-
tives in resisting, it is not for us to question
them. If he feared to do otherwise than he
did, lest he should be sent into private life, It
is tribute to our principles, and an eneoura
ging sign of the times. If he resisted on prin-
ciple, so much the better. But the doctrine
Of Douglas on popular sovereignty in the Ter
ritories, we regard as merely one of the shams
of modern Democracy. 1t is based on no
sound logic and on no sound principle. The
Slavery Propagandists assail it for its evasions
of constitutional duty, its violations of WE'LL
settled legal principles. We agree with the
South, that the position of Douglas is unten-
able. We say it is clear, that if the Constitur
ton recognises slaves as property, and carries
Slavery into the Territories, or sustains the
claim of the aveholder to hold slaves therein,
then there is no escaping the duty of Congress
to legislate for its projections And the slave
holders are consistent In setting up this claim.
upon that branch of the Government And
Douglass scheme of circumventing this de-
mand is an evasion of constitutional duty. His
great fundamental error, and the great error
of the Slavery Propagandists, is in holding
that the Constitution recognises slaves as
property. 1t is this position that involves
Douglas in his emUarrassments and inconsist
encies, and vitiates all his logic. For this doc
trine once admitted, everything else follows
that the Slavery men claim.
On the other hand, the position of Douglas
is assailed by the Republicans for its pretence
of adhering to the great principle of popular
sovereignty, when it does no such thing. The
Republicans hold to the only genuine popular
sovereignty. They contend for the equal rights
of all men. They labor to have those rights
protected. They claim that Congress, having
the power, is in duty bound to aid in securing
the exercise of popular sovereignty in the Ter
ritories, by protecting them against every dan
ger to its exercise, whether it be from ecclesias-
teal domination or slaveholding aristocracies,
or whatever malign power and influence may
attempt to creep in to destroy the working of
the free principles.
The Republicans are the only champions Of
popular rights, for they are the only party that
insists upon securing those rights upon an inn
mutable foundation. They labor for this, and
for nothing else. They do not deal in frauds
or pretences. They go straight to the mark,
and vigorously uphold the great and vital doc
trine of human rights and equality before the
law. The equal political rights of all men, is
their motto; the participation of all in the crea-
ton and control of the governing power, the
thing they seek. If this is not popular sover-
eighty, we should like to know what is {? Not
spurious, hypocriticsl popular sovereignty, like
that of Mr. Douglas, which stulti6es itself by
claiming the right to create distinctions among
men, and to put one class under the feet of
another.
Yet this is the popular sovereignty which
seems to satisfy Mr.. Forney, and some other
apparently well-meaning men appear to think
it will quite content the demands of the demo
cratic sentiment in this country. Mr.. Douglas,
with this bloodless efigy in his hands, this
mere crow-frightening representation ofgenuine
flesh and blood, sets it up, and pretends it is a
living, selfsustaining force.
1t may be that Mr.. Douglas has persuaded
himself into the belief that what he calls popu-
lar sovereignty has vital germ within it, that
is able to secure it against collapse and decom-
position. We say this may be SO, for selfde-
fusion is a common form of human weakness.
But we at least have no such confidence. We
know that what Douglas calls popular sover-
eighty is no popular sovereignty. For he de.
clares that it may consist with laws which sup
press popular rights. He holds that, under it,
the strong may Cypress the weak. His doctrine
admits of an aristocracy to sway the State.
These views are certainly antagonistic to genu-
inc democracy. They may answer as a tempo
rary resting place for weary democratic souls,
who have been wandering in the swamps of err
ror and sophistry these five years, never once
feeling the hard ground under them, and who
have stubbornly refused to follow the only
guides that can take them out of the boys in
which they wander. But as for being views that
will permanently commend themselves to honest
and earnest minds, who seek the truth and abhor
subterfuge and lies, we know they are not. We
feel sure that Mr.. Douglass position is doomed
to be crushed between the two opposing forces
which press upon it on the one side and the
other. No heartfelt advocate of genuine pop
ular sovereignty viii adhere to it, when the more
thorough and consistent position of the Repub
licans is open to him. On the other hand, no
open advocate of the spread of Slavery will do
it, for he viii not trust his cause to the caprice
of multitudes, while it can commend the sane
ton and support of the Judicial and Executive
departments of the Government
Since the above written, have the report
of speech OF Mr. Douglas, in Ohio, in which he absn-
dOns this ground, and that Slavery purely local
institution and is not recognised by the Constitution
cept where il has been established by local law
THE ESSENCE OF DEMAGOGUISM.
In the speech of Senator Douglas at Column
bus, he gave utteranee to the following senti-
ment, in which he, without design and merely
by instinct, lays down the creed of the dema-
gogue. He said:
{" He held any doctrine to be unsound which
could not be carried and discussed in Column
bus and in Charleston, or New Orleans and
Chicago. There was something radically wrong
about any doctrine that could not be proclaimed
North and South, East and West-any doctrine
affecting the whole people, that was not as broad
as the country and as universal as the Consti-
tuition"