The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1860-11-23

! hibition is not to be had, | for one
: would be willing to accept this plal
: Of settlement. But it 10 too plail
Q for denial that the plan of Mr.. Doug
: las, as exhibited in the Kansas
, Nebraska bill, is no plan Of popula
Sovereignty, but a scheme whicl
7 combines, in tho worst form, Con
D gress!onal sovereignty. Presidentia
Q sovereignty and Judicial sovereign
ty. In word, it is a comrlet
illustration OF the saying OF Talloy
: rand who, when asked the meanin,
OF non.intervention, replied, ate
musing O IN Iment: non intcrven
I tion-n Intervention - all! it i
pretty much tho same thing as In
{ tervention."
And certainly Mr.. Douglas plar
: has not proved beneficial one fo
J the country. Far from com posins
the controversy concerning slavery
, it has inhamed and embittered it,
1t has introduced discord and strf,
into the territories and it hiss excite,
distrust and alienation beyond al
former precedent, between tho differ
ent sections Of the country.
| regard then the settlement pro
lposei by Mr.. Douglas as failure
think you will agree that do mo-
80 regard it without reason.
Let me now submit to your con
sideration the Republican plan. Il
consists simply in denatioualizing
slavery. No Republican proposes
any interference with slavery in any
state. Our theory wisely leaves to
each state complete control over all
its domestic concerns. You in Ken
lucky have neither the right nor the
disposition to interfere with our
affairs in Ohio. We in Ohio have
neither tho right nor the disposition
to interfere with your affairs in Ken.
lucky.
Slavery in slave states is in no
danger from unconstitutional in.
reference by r 'publicans, aud per
init me to say that | cannot bu,
think that if gentlemen of slave
states would study our principles
y on this point a little moro carefully
and represent them a little more
correctly, a good deal OF misappre-
hensoE might be prevented. la
the misapprehension there may be
some danger.
But while the Republicans do not
propose any interference with slavery
in states, they do propose TO exclude
1t from the territories. There can
be no peace without such exclusion,
and why should citizens of slave
states complain OF it? Laboripg
freemen will fiud there, happier aud
more prosperous homes than where
slavery prevails. Capitalists, wheth.
or Of slave states or tree, can invest
their means there with iairer pos
pect OF returns, than if slavery were
allowed. Nobody is harmed, but
all are benefited by the exclusion.
And not only is this policy beneficial
in itself, but we have for it the sane
ton OF the wiscst and best men OF
the Republic.
The Compromise Measures of
1850 are some time alleged as pre-
ceden's for the Kansas Nebraska act
of 1854. But tho latter finds no
sanction whatever in the former
Mr.. Clay, Mr.. Benton, and Mr..
Webster, were oil in favor OF ex.
clusion- not indecl in favor OF
Congressional prohibition, for they
thought that unnecessary-but in
favor OF tho exclusion which they
all agreed was already accomplished,
rs to the territory acquired from
Mexico, by geographical conditions
and the Mexican laws; and as to the
territory acquired from France, by
the Missouri prohibition North OF
$3.50 Who has forgotten the de-
claration OF Mr.. Webster, that where
ever his vote shonld he needed to
stay the evil o! slavery from any foot
OF American soil, that vote should
not be wanting2 And who can for
get the emphatic exclamation OF
Clay, that no vote ol his should ever
be g ven for the propagation OF
wrongs"
Snail We be censured, then, II,
seeing that the barriers against
slavery extension, relied on by these
illustrious men, have all been
broken down, VIC seek to establish,
new barriers as we'll as to repair the
old2
! say to you frankly, that Rcpuh-
licans mean to exclude slavery from
the territories. As to the mode oi
exclusion, they arc comparatively
Indifferent. They are willing to ac
cept any mode which will certainly
DO effective. They believe tina,
the Constitution, justly interpreted
would, OF itself, accomplish the oh
iect. Give them such an inter
probation, and an honest admisistra
ton of the federal government, ant
they will be content. They regart
{ simple prohibition as another mode
r and they will accept that. An'
most of thcm bclieve--l certainl,
believe, for one that true doctrin
I OF federal non-intervention aud pop
! ular sovereignty, fairly, honestly ap
8 piled, would almost certainly hay
. tho samo resu,t, and, falling I
a obtain prohibition, they will nc
c hesitate to avail themselves OF that.
G The general result which the
g propose is plain and simple, 1t
non. interference by the federal go'
% crnment with slavery in the states, an
1t exclusion Of slavery from tho sphe'