The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-01-26

became the advocates OF popular sovereignty
so wide wild, and anarchical as to disregard con
stitutien and law, and set at defiance all legal
authorities. While VIC denounced the secrecy OF
the extra judicial and proserptiye oaths and IL
liberal tenets Of the know nothingS, republican
conventions nominated members of that order
/ for office. and urged COthohcs and naturalIzed
citizens to sustain them using every device OF
sophstrv and deception, il successful, would dis
! franchise. While we would lcgislate ter all
white men alike, and especially for labor as
against capital, they would degrade the laboring
white man hp making the negro his equal, and
denounce our courts Tor not so deciding
While wc ask only that the constitution of a
new State shall be republican in form, diSclain-
ing any right to inquire whether 1t permit or
inhbit slavery, any right to inquire whether IN
to the manner of Its formation and adoption, so
! they conform to constitution and INV, caring
not whether it be rendered full and final by nc
! ton of a convention, or only complete by sub
mission to q popular vote leaving that to de
cison of those directly interested, and to their
! LEGAL laws, republicans avow as cardinal prin-
ciple their opposition to any more slave States.
| Yet, when Minnesota and Oregon asked admis
sion with free State Constitutions, the represen-
tativcs Of that party voted against and embar-
raSscd the admission OF these States, and have
vet DELAYED that of the latter, because the new
States are democratic. Their hatred of democ-
racy overcome their pretended love Of freedom!
, And when Kansas asked admission with slave
! holding constitution, they laid aside their no.
more slave State idea, and voted for its admission
with such constitution in voting for the Critten-
den Montgomery amendment, coupling the ad-
mission only with condition equivalent to n
! A., 1, h,fT o. ,ptn
with the domestic affairs Of the Territory--a
condition they knew was diStasteful to democrats
and would bc opposed by them. They hated
slavery none the less, but hated democracy the
more! They charged that cur doctrine Of non
intervention or popular sovereignty committed
us to acQuiescence in all the monstrosItcs usur-
pations. aud rcbellons IN Utah as expressions
of the popular wiII--popular sovereignty Of its
people But they were at the same time insti-
eating rebeIlions equally as great in Kansas
! Our answer to their charge was, that our pop
ular sovereignty is one OF constitution and law,
not of riots, mobs, and anarchy, And when
the president asked appropriations to enable him
to Subdue, as was his duty, the REBELLION in
! Utah, ofwhich they had complained, MS well as
! that in Kansas, of wkich We complained, they
denounced the appropriations as contemplated
/
observance Of the constitution upon people who
should be le # 10 govern themselves in their own
way, though the way was notorously analchl-
cal and unconstitutional. Much the same state
of civil affairs existed in both Territories; the
same rule Of action was applicable to both
This republicans saw, and knew they must
/ hence either vote money 10 sabdue their omi-
orant.aid rebel friends Ia kansas or Justify sim.
| liar rebellion in Utah.r aifeF adopted the lat
! ter alternative, What then had become o.
| their previously -proessed horror Of Mormon
ism and its attendant evils?
! These territorial difficulties with others grow.
ing out ofcur Indian and foreign relations ,rcqur-
ed expenditures to meet them. The President
asked for the necessary appropriations. The
republican representatives, voted for many o
them--then denounced the administration fol
extravaganza in eypcnding the money--and, to
sustain these denunciations, eXaggcrate the eX'
| pcndturcs near onc-h2lt
This is no fancy sketch, but hcts--matters o
| history and record. The most important re
cent party isSue--at least that " hich hrs crea-
ted the most feeling relaed to our territorial
possessions, especially in Kansas.
| All democrats hold to the policy OF mon, in,
| tervcntion" or "popular soycrcgnty;" some be,
| leving Congress has no constitutional right to
dictate or interfere n ary manner with the
domestic institutions 0 an organize Territory
Others, though claiming the right, believe It's
exercise to bc ineXpcdcnt and unwisc. Oppo-
scl to this is the republican doctrine of"sov-
crcgn power" in Congress over the Territories
and repeated demands for its exercise. This is,
sue is thus broad and we'll defined; though
az already stated, the republicans have upon
several occasions temporarily abandoned their
doctrine ofsovcrcign power from motives OF eX
pediency. and directly or implicitly defended
open rebellion in Kansas and advocated the
right of portion OF its people to govern the
Territory in tbeir own way, though the way
was in defiance ofal law, national and local
This they did in their defence of those engage
in the Topeka movement and Of the same mer
when opposing the Lecempton constitution
Both these movcmcnls--the formation of the
Topeka constitution and opposing to that o
Lecompton-were guided in Kansas by the same
men. They first formed pretended to adop
and sought to enforce the former constitution
withouta shadow o. law to sustain the move
meut in it's incipency or progress, but, on tht
contrary, in open defiance o law and legal au
thoriIes; and next opposed the latter, every
step in the formation and adoption of which wa,
in strict conformity with law All democrat:
were opposed to the recognition Of the former
A majority of the party in Congress were viii
/ ling toadmit Kansas with the latter, accompa
nying the act Of admission with declaration 0
the right of its citizens to change or amend
their constitution whenever they saw proper
They were thus willing not from any prefer
cnce for the latter instrument per Sc. Both were
republican in form, and the provisions OF iht
former we're more acceptable to the North, bu
the lawess manner Off its formation and adop'
ton was fatal objection TO its support by dem
ocrats, and they found opposition to the laLte
in Kansas TO be of the same lawess character
with support of the former, and led by the SAINT
men. All republicans supported the tormc
and opposed the latter; thus consistently suS
tanning the same men and same lawless meas
ures throughout. AL democrats were and arr
in favor oil popular sovereignty" but there is I
difference among them as to the practical ap
plIcation of the doctrine, and especiallya dill
ference as to facts connected with its appIica
ton in the one case-Kansas The great body
Of the party hold mon intervention" and pop
ular sovereignty" 10 be reconcilable, c0nver
tible--analogous terms; they hold that whel
Congress does not interuene to 60 behind loca
constitution and laws, the citizens OF that local
ity must of necessity be lett free to form ant
regulate in their own way, Others would max
them irreconcilable and contradictory terms
and have Congress interfere with local affairs o
a people in the name Of popular sovereignty
If that body has the right to interfere in iavo
Of popular sovereignty" it has equally tn
right to interfere againstit. The principle Q
interference once admitted and the 'sovereig,
power of the republicans quickly follows; ant
! Congress, instad Of being the guardian oia Ter
ritory under the constitution, would become 1t
tyrant and oppressor We see in this one rea
son for tho warm support by the republicans Q
tho proposition to percmptorily send back the
Kansas constitution. 1t was proposition
|, which hvnrnd iheir designs by prodneing dis