The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1860-08-03
DOUGLAS and HIS RECORD.
The Track OF "a DemngOguc.
He wires in and wires out,
Aud leaves the reader still In doubt,
Whether the snake that made the track
Was going South or c,ming lack.

Now that Stephen A. Douglas has
--."rlntnlv boxed the nninr-------' 49,
question Of Slavery in the Territories,
says the Toledo Blade, we propose brief
ly to trace his tortuous course, and from
his own record show the utter heartlcss-
ness Of all his professions Of principle in
that connection. OfOll the dcmogogues
that have gained a national reputation,
we think we shall show him to be the
most unscrupulous and bure-loced. We
propose to take four distinct views of
him-lst, as Congressional Intcrvcn-
Zionist against Slavery in the Territories
2l, as a on-Inteventionist or advocate
of Squattcr Sovereignty; Sd, as defend
or of the "Irrepressible Conflicts" and
4th, as Congressional Intcryentionist
for Slavery in the Territories.
list. Douglas as an hnteEVcn-
tiOnist Against slavery.
In ls45, De ,ember goth while joint
esolution was pending, presented by
Mr.. Brown, of Tennessee, for the admis.
sion Of Texas into the Union, Mr.. Doug
las offered the following amendment;
"And in such State or States as may
be formed out of said Territory north Of
said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or
involuntary servitude (except for crime)
shall be prohibited. ~. s.. Statutes al
iarge--ls30--ls46, p. 7S9.
He here not only seeks to employ
Congressional Intervention against Say-
cry in the Territories, but by this amend
ment would prohibit States from having
Slavery even iftheir people wished Il.
Again, on the 10th Of August, 1913,
the bill for establishing the Territorial
Government Of Oregon being before the
senute. Mr. Douglas offered an amend.
ment prohibiting Slavery within the pro.
posed Territory, which was adopted, re-
ceiving, as he elsewhere tells, the votes
of all the Southern Senators.
In le4s, on the 2sd Of October, the
Springfield (Illinois) Journal says, Mr.,
Douglas made speech in that city, in
which he gave utterunce to the follow.
ing: TR ETT +
"The Missouri Compromise had an or
| igin. akin.to that Of the Constitutiou Of
the United States conceived IN the spirit
of fraterual affection, and calculated 10 re-
moUe forever ihe danger iehfeh seemed q
threaten, at some disfdAt day, 10 seUtFthe
social bonds Of union. All evidence oi
pp bile opinion ofthat day seemed 70 in.
tlicate that this Colnpromise had been
cdnORized IN he AeGrts Of the A BiericaH
people an a sacred thing,which no RUTH.
LESS HAND would ever be reckless
enough 10 disturb"
Bear in mind, that the "sacred thing
which was thus "canonized in tho hoarti
Of the American peopls,"wss a Congres-
sional prohibition Of Slavery in the Ter,
ritories! ..s--rsa ,ra.F a
In 1850, the "sacred" measure Uf Con
gressional Intervention against Slavery
was attacked by John C. Calhoun in the
United States Senate, when Mr.. Doug
las came promptly to lis defence, as fol
lows; lratL EII.tl
TFhe next In the series ofaggressiopi
complained Of by the Senator from South
Carolina Is the Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Compromise il an act o
+ Northern injustice, designed TO deprive
the South OF her due share Of the terrific
ries! Why sir, il was only the very day
that the Senator from MississippidesPaiT
ed Of any peaeeable adjustment Of exist
ling difficulties, because the Missouri
Compromise line could not be extended
TO the Pacific. That measure was orig
!nally adopted in the bill for the udmis-
sion Of Missouri, by a union Of Northern