Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1860-07-26
The Popular sovereignty Doc
frine and the Douglas Ticket.

~ II
trine and the Douglas Ticket.
A correspondent in Iowa desires 10 know
s.more in full, the objections we entertain
to the doctrine Of fnon-intervention, or Pop
ular Sovereignty" as represented by the
Douglas Presidential ticket. We take
great pleasure in responding to his re-
quest.
Our first objection rests upon the fact
that the doctrine is not represented by that
ticket-tbat it will not be established by
its success. Mr.. Douglas himself has
aEowed his adhesion to it, and stands be-
fore the people as its recognized champion.
But he bases his advocacy of it upon un-
tenable ground. He holds that slaves are
property, jast like horses or hogs, aud as
such may be taken into the territories by
their owners. But s0hen there, be insists,
they must depend wholly upon the local
law for their protection. The Territorial
Legislature may make laws-or refuse to
make them-guaranteeing to the owner
peaceable possessions of his slave property,
-and in either case there is no redress.
Congress has no right to interfere in any
way. The answer made to this is, that if
slaves are mere property and are reeogni-
zed as such by the Federal Constitution,
then their owners cannot be deprived of
that property in any Territory or other
place where the Federal Constitution is
sovereign, except by due process of law.
And upon Mr.. Douglas platform, which
comedies slaves to be property in the eye
of the Constitution of the United States,
we do not see how the reply is to be sue
cessfully met.
Mr.. Douglas, moreover, in his speech on
the Conspiracy bill, completely abandoned
his doctrine of non-intervention. He had
always held that slave property must de-
pend for its security exclusively upon the
local law, even in the Territories which TO
a very considerable extent al all events,
are subject to the action of Congress-
But in that speech he urged the passage
Of law which should make conspiracy
to steal slaves in any State, an offence
against the Federal Government. This
was simply invoking Congressional inter
vention for the protection of slave proper
ty in the States, and involved the entire
abandonment of bis theory that it must
depend for protection, everywhere, wholly
and exclusively upon the local law.
But waving all this-conceding Mr..
Douglas to be in favor of non-intervention,
the nomination of Mr.. H. V. johnson on
the same ticket, is complete abandon
ment of this ground by that wing of the
Democratic party which they are suppo-
sed TO represent. Mr.. johnson is an open,
avowed and unmistakable advocate of the
doctrine that slaves are property, under
the Federal Constitution, and as such en-
titled to the guarantees of the Federal
Government in the Territories of the Uni
ted States.
Here passages from the Record of Mr..
JOHNSON are quoted:
1t will scarcely do to present a man
holding such opinions, as the representa-
tive and embodiment of the doctrine of
Non-intervention. Jefferson Davis him
self could not more clearly proclaim the
duty of Congress to protect Slavery in the
Territories Of the United States. The
nomination of such man on the ticket
with Douglas converts the canvass into
broad farce,-or displays most unprinci-
pied attempt to impose upon the public
credulity.
As to the principle of Popular Sover-
eighty ITSELF we have little to say. In its
application to the Territories we do rot
find any warrant for it in the letter of the
Constitution. Indeed, we do not find in
that instrument any clear and explicit pro-
vision Of any kind, for the organization
and government of colonial territories of
the United States,-nor do we believe that
the trainers of the Constitution looked for
ward 10 the creation of any such political
communities, or had them in their contem-
plation at all when they drew up that in
strument. Nevertheless, we hold that the
supreme authority over these Territories
rests in the Federal Government NOT as
a matter of construction, nor of distinct
constitutional provision, but of political NO.
cessity. Those Terriritories must be gov
erned in some way. There must be au-
thority somewhere to make laws for them,
and it cannot be found anywhere else.
The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, in
its application to them, involves too many
absurdities, if carried to its legitimate re-
rults, to be founded in truth. If it be
true at all, it must be wholly true,-and
would forbid Congress from assigning
boundaries, prescribing constitution, ap-
pointing judges, governors or other officers,
or in any way interfering with its affairs,
as well as from making laws for the gov
eminent of the new Territory.
AS a matter of theory, therefore, we
hold TO the supremacy of Congress over
the Territories. But there are many sound
and just theories which cannot be carried
into practice without involving very seri-
GUS practical inconveniences,-and this is
one of them. In all such cases we deem
1t wise to consult practical results rather
than sickle for technical dogmas. And
whether Congress is or not sovereign, ac-
cordlng to the Constitution, over the Ter
ritories,-whether the people have or have
not the technical right TO make laws and
manage Their own affairs, we hold that the
wisest practical solution of the controver-
sy between the two sections of the coun-
try, upon this point, is to acquiesce in their
exercise of that franchise-to commit to
them, with such restrictions as may be
found ahcol,,talzz .aaeasaa-z=