The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-07-18
TERMS--S2,O0
Johnson Condemned by Douglas.

johnson Condemned by Douglas
In his famous article published in HaTsrs
Magazine, Mr.. Douglas made the following OBJ
servation in the first column on the second
page of that remarkable treatise on popular SOW
ereignty:
ut is difficult to conceive how any person
who believes that the Constitution confers ths
right ofProtection in the enjoyment Of slsss
property in the Territories, regardless Of the
wishes of the people and of the action Of the tsr4
ritorial Legislature, ,evsn satisfy his conscience and
his oath Of fidelity to The Constitution in sOithold-
ing snch congressional legislation as may Be esss-
t'dl to tie enjoyment Of such right under dS Con-
stitation. Under this view of the subject IL 10
impossible to resist the conclusion that il the Con-
stitution does establish slavery in the Terrific
ries beyond the power Of the people to control
it by law, it is die imperative duty of Congress to
supply oil the legislation necessary to its pro-
| tection"
Mr.. Douglas clearly intimates in the foregoing
that any man who believes that the Constitu.
ton coniers the right to hold slaves in the Ter
ritories does violence to his conscience and
breaks his oath Of fidelity 70 the Constitution,
If he withholds such congressional les isiatioa
as may be necessary to secure the perfect enjoy
ment of that right.
1t seems from the following extract from
letter written by Gov. johnson on May 28th,
1860, year after having read Mr. Douglas
article. and when he had full knowledge of
the Douglas platform, that Gov. Johnson's po.
sition the question is precisely that to which
Mr., Douglas charge of faithlessness to the oath
Of fidelity to the Constitution applies with full
vigor and effect. The following Is the extract
to which we refer: ~
~ believe that 1t is the right Of the South 10
demand, and the duty of Congress to extend.
protection to persons and property Of every kind
(including slaverv) in the Territories during
| their territorial state. This is no now opinion.
I advocated the doctrine as far back as 1s48, ia
the Senate of the United States. Tfyou have
any curiosity to see the argument, refer you
to my speech on the Oregon bill, delivered 7th
July Of that year, and reported in the Congress
sional Globe. How unjust, therefore. arc the
nsinuations with which you intersperse and
nterlard your editorial comments that all are
in favor Of 'squatter sovereignty who happen
not to agree with the seceders from the Char
lesion Convention! I repel the insinuation 50
far as it may be intended to apply tome. como
from what quarter it may and plead my own
record in vindication
"But this is not the question now before the
democratic party Of the South. The question
is not whether we have the right to demand.
but whether, under the circumstances, we ought
to demand congressional intervention for the
protection Of slavery in the Territories? think
we ought not, and the object ofmy Macon letter
was to vindicate that opinion"
Here Gov. johnson prides himself on the
fact that for years,-"as far back as 1848"-he
advocated the right of the South to demand.
and the dutyo Congress to extend protection
to persons and property Of every kind, (inelu-
ding slavery)in the Territories, and yet, al
though Mr. Douglas finds it difficult to conceive
how ha can satisfy his conscience and his oath
Of fidelity to the Constitution, Gov. Johnson
thinks that he ought not to demand protection
for the right ofthe coustitutionality ofwhich he.
has no doubt, and which he advocated with SO
much zeal.
We leave the two standard bearafs Of the
Front Street Theatre democracy. to settle this
little matter OF conscience and the obligation Of
an oath, between themselves, and simply con-
fine ourselves to pointing out for the informa.
ton of the people the remarkable discrepancy
between their positions on he questions Of tho
day.