The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-01

Union, on the other hand, Like minors, are for a
brief time held subject to paternal rule for their
benefit, in order that they may be trained and
disciplined, and prepared to take their places
as coequal members of the Confederacy. Upon
] the theory as well as practice of the British
Constitution, the colonies were never to arrive
at majority-never to be invested with the pre-
rogratives of selfgovernment; while the period
of restraint allotted to Territories has rare
ly equaled in duration the minority of hu-
man being. The colonies had no inducement
to submit in perpetuity to foreign dominion,
| of which they were forever to remain passive
subjects. Revolution was their only remedy /;
and they applied it as soon as they had the
physical power to vindicate their rights.
| Mr.. Douglas labors through several pages of
the magazine to demonstrate the right of every
community, large or small, to govern itself,
and establish its institutions in its own way
and then, in the face of these broad and I'M
qualified assertions of popular sovereignty, he
proposes to take from the Southern States the
/. right of introducing more slaves from the coast
I of AfricaI But we have no quarrel with him
on this ground. We only point out the glaring
inconsistency, and leave him with his Southern
friends to settle it. If they are content, we
shall not complain.
We will now notice his very lame attempt to
show that the policy and practice of the Fed
eral Government, from the earliest times, has
been in accordance with his theory. His OBJ
ianf fo to lro bof f1o MOI.
pie of popular sovereignty which was asserted
in the act of revolution, was carried out by the
Federal Governpnent in its management of
the Territories.
He begins by stating that, an 1884, Mr.. JEFF
ferson, as the chairman of committee, of
which Mr.. Chase of Maryland and Mr.. Howell
of Rhode Island were his colleagues, submit
ted plan for the government of the Western
J Territories, which at the same session of Con-
gress had been formally received by deed of
cession from Virginia. This plan embraced
various provisions, and, among them, one which
forever excluded Slavery from all the Terrific
ries of the Union, which fact, and many others
-connected with the subject Mr. Douglas omits
TO state,) from the extreme north down to the
3lst parallel of latitude which formed the
boundary between the United States and the
Spanish divisions.
. This Anti-Slavery proviso was rejected, and
Mr.. Douglas is satisfied to state the naked fact,
without any ofthe accompanying circumstances.
The report, without this proviso, was adopted
by Congress, and Mr.. Douglas still calls it the
Jefersonian plan of Territorial Government
Every one knows that the Anti-Slavery clause
was the great idea of Mr.. Jefferson, and that
which gave to the plan its Jeffersonian char
aeteristie. We will proceed to give some fur
.sher particulars, which Mr.. Douglas has omit
led. The concurrence of nine States, under the
Articles of Confederation, were necessary to
. he adoption Of any act or resolution. On the
present occasion, eleven States were present
Of these, seven, viz: the four New England
tates, with New York, New Jersey, and Penn
ylvania, voted for it; North Carolina was d.
ded; Delaware and Georgia were unrepre-
sented Maryland, Virginia, and South Caro-
Gina, voted against it. Mr.. Jefferson, from Vir-
.ginia, was voted down by his two colleagues,
and Mr.. Chase of Maryland, in like manner, by
sais colleagues. So that twothirds of the States
present, and still larger majority of the mem
sbers, were in favor of the Anti-Slavery clause,
Ind only three States, with divided delegations,
soted for it. The true Anti-Slavery Jeferso-
ian policy was the policy of the majority of the
ountry and under our present form of Gov
rnment it would have been adopted.
Having insinuated, # it to be inferred,
hat non-intervention was finally settled upon as
he. policy of the Government, he jumps over
he whole period from 1884 down to 1851 He
.sys not a word of the Anti-Slavery ordinance
: 1887, which was adopted by the Congress of
lie Confederation, and which was afterwards
hgrafted into the Territorial charters of all the
Northwestern States, including those of Wis
fonsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Oregon. These
territorial charters were adopted under every
administration of the Government from that of
= Washington to that of James K Polk, and
sacluding them both! What must be thought
s cause which requires such evasion and
.ticence, or of the candor of a statesman who
Undertakes to impose it upon an intelligent
faader is left to infer that the plan of 1884, de-
ls,ded of the Anti-Slavery proviso, was acted
s pom invariably down to 1850.
= But we will here desist for the present. and
eIobrace another occasion to notice other fea-
ares of this remarkable document We must
60 Mr.. Douglas the justice to say that it is writ
{ n In better taste than anything we have ever
J fore seen from his pen, and that it is entirely
: ae from coarseness and i'll nature.
: The RESULT IN NORTH CARoLINA.-The fol-
Swing are the official returns of the late cleo
ton for Congressman in North Carolina
Mai
lst District. Smith, Opp. 5l4
I'd -" Rufin, Dem. 1851
Sd Winslow, Dem. 3,49O
4th Branch, Dem. 1913
5th Gilmer, Opp. 1,849