Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-09-12
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY,

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
The essay on popular Sovereignty in the
Territories" published by Mr.. Douglas in
Harper's Magazine, closes with the following
statement of doctrine 1.-THE principle, under
our political system, is that every distinct Com
mphity, loyal to the Constitution and the
Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges,
and immunities of selfgovernment in respect
to their local concerns and internal polity, sub
ject only to the Constitution of the United
States"
1t is evident that Mr.. Douglas wishes to
have it believed that somebody in the United
States denies this theory. Has it not been
said and sung in every part of the land, since
the Declaration of Independence began the
ringing of bells and the firing Of cannon, in eel
ebration of its advent in America? Is it not, so
far as theory goes, the light and joy of Ameri-
can patriotism, or, at any rate, do we not all
swear it is /? Has it not boiled in the veins of
our fourth of July orators for more than
eighty years? Certainly. And yet, Mr..
Douglas, who has said and done so much to
deny it in practice, far as relates to the ter
ritories, wishes to have it regarded as his own
special thunder! When he is ready to APP
ply it in earnest to the territories, it
will be quite in time to admit that he
really advocates any doctrine which hes
a right to be called popular sovereignty.
AT present, he no more aims to carry out that
principle, in the territories, than he aims to
abolish slavery in South Carolina. He has not
omitted to say what he means. His speech in
the Senate last winter was very explicit. But
he has cunning method of talking to bewil-
der and mislead although he has not failed to
make it certain to careful observers that no
man in the country is less inclined than he to
grant the territories call the rights, privileges,
and immunities of selfgoyernment."
l. If he really meant popular sovereignty
in the territories, he would in the Senate and
before the people urge the right of the people
Of a territory to choose their own governors
and other local officers, and to exercise without
interference all the prerogatives of selfgovern-
ment. But he does not mean it, and therefore
makes a merit of urging that the people of
territory should be allowed to legislate for
themselves, without interference in one or two
particulars. What absurdity there is in pre-
tending that "the rights, privileges, and
immunities of selfgovernment are al
lowed to a community which is not
lowed to organize its own government,
choose its own governors and other local
agents, nor even to make its own laws with
entire independence! When the Illinois SEN
ator is found maintaining that the federal ex-
ecutive has under the constitution no more
right to appoint executive officers for a terri
tory than for state, we shall begin to think
he means popular sovereignty.
2 Mr.. Douglas very explicitly denies that
territory is "a distinct political community" in
any such sense as he means in that proposition
concerning the right of selfgovernment. In
his speech in the Senate, lasu 7 st---s, no said
HOlu
that no such thing as sovereign power attaches
to territory while territory" And, in the
same connection, he maintained in the most
explicit terms that territory has while ter
ritory no political power, save what it gets
through the organizing act of Congress- In
this speech he said precisely what he means
on some other occasions he has bewildered his
auditors and led their thoughts astray.
The truth is that Mr. Douglas has as little
relish for genuine popular sovereignty in the
territories as it is possible for any man to
have. 1t was advocated by Jefferson, who pro-
posed to have the people of territory select
the constitution of one ofthe states and govern
themselves according to its provisions. His
doctrine, however, did not prevail and, from
the beginning, the usage has been to keep
the territories in a sort of pupilage
to Congress and the federal executive The
authority Of Congress over the territories has
never been denied. Mr.. Douglas himself does
not deny it; he urges only that congressional
power over the territories should be suspended
in one or two particulars. So far is he from
denying this power, that he maintains that
without it no territory could become a DO
itical community or get possession of any
political right whatever. There is in reality
nothing but expediency between him and
congressional slave code for the territories.
He holds already that the federal constitution
authorizes slavery to go into the territories
and exist there md how far is it from this
position to the Southern Democratic doctrine
that slavery in the territories must be protected
by act of Congress Certainly not SO far as
from reverence for sacred compromise" to
the repeal of that compromise; nor SO far as
from Illinois to the White House.