The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1859-10-21
Car lev versus Douglas.

Mr.. Greeley publishes letter in the New
FORK Tribune, which he entities History
indicated" The letter is q reply to Mr.
Douglas Harper article. The veteran edi-
tor of the Tribune says he did, at one time,
"cherish a strong desire to reply to the Har-
per article at length, through the pages OF
the magazine that gave tito the world but,
on iutimating that purpose to its editor, he
was denied a hearing in its columns, though
it was graciously intimated that similar
demand from one of the leading Republic
cans might perhaps be fayorably consider
ed" Mr.. Greeley thinks if he is not a lead
ing Republican, it would be hard to find
one. He then takes issue with Mr.. Douglas
on the proposition that, "The genius and
spirit of our free institutions plainly require
that the people of Territory should be
enabled and encouraged to establish and
maintain human slavery on the soil of such
Territory, if they see fit" and proceeds to
give the history of the legislation in regard
to the Northwestern Territory, as he reads
it. He accuses the Little Giant of garbling
and misstating the facts in the case-skip-
ping that part of the history that was
against his theory, and only selecting such
portions as was in its favor.
Mr.. Greeley closes his letter with the fol-
lowing concise paragraphs, which we give
as his views on that subject:
The doctrine which denies TO Congress
the right to inhibit slavery in the Terrific
ries had its origin in the perplexities of
Presidential aspirant no longer ago than
lS4S. When ofice-seekers cease TO have
special need of it. it will die the death of
the humbugs, and be buried in their open
grave.
You speak of the antagonistic doctrine
which confdes the guardianship of Impair
tial Freedom in the Territories of the Uni
ted States to the whole people as represented
in the Congress of the United States rather
than to the few thousands of their number
who first gain a footing on these Territories,
as strife-breeding, feud-inciting, as between
diverse sections of the Union. History does
not sustain that imputation. The Ordinance
of 81 and the Missouri Restriction success
sively secured to the country long terms of
comparative rest from slavery agitation.
The Nebraska bill has given us what you
see. 1t has distracted not merely the coun-
try but the Democratic party. Even yOu
give three several interpretations of the
spirit and drift of that, and the Popular
Sovereignty which it embodieS, as held
by different sections of that party. Mr..
Senator! allow me to say in conclusion
that of these diverse interpretations yours
seems To me the most unsatisfactory and ir-
ritating. | comprehend, ! regard with a
certain respect, the tiIe-eater who tells ME
=" The Cog si!tutiCn guarantees me the
RICH; vi r,h ng slaves into the Territories
anu holding tnem there. ] demand of Con-
gresS such legislation as will render that
right impregnable, / trust he cOmDre-
hends and respects me when | respond:
"The Constitution -es you no right Ito
carry slavery into the Territories where
fore | shall endeavor to keep it out, and viii
favor no such Legislation as you require
but how can either of us respect you-how
can you respect yourself-when you say in
effect:
"True, you Shareholders have right to
fill the Territories with your slaves; but the
squatter so ereigns may nullify that right
by unfriendly legislation, and you are
without remedy" Mr.. Senator! whenever
/ realize that the shareholders have con-
stitutional right to carry their human chat
tells into the Territories and hold them
there, will respect that right to its legiti-
mate scope and spirit, and not attempt to
white it away, as you do in your comments
on the bred Scott decision. The topic is a
grave one; the time is earnest; the people
intent on facts, and in no mood to be amused
or cajoled by mere words. Ithink you mis-
conceive alike topic, time, and people to your
own serious damage