The Jeffersonian Democrat. [volume] (Chardon, Ohio) 1854-1865, 1860-08-31
VOLUME X1. NO. 35.
For the JefFersonian Democrat.
Inoonsistencies Of Stephen A. Douglas.


He is remarkable, not only for assuming
any position that circumstances may re.
Quiro, but for the logged determination
with which he attempts to carry out that
position, while he is, OF tho Same time, com.
batting against principle Ho has always
been ready and willing TO tako either sdo OF
great national questions, as would DO most
likely to insure his success. Ho has always
been dishonest. politician. as his ,corG
shows In Chicago he is in favor of Squat
ter SovereigntS; in New Orleans, he is in
favor Of tho Intervention OF Congress to
protect Slavery in tho Territories. In DC.
tober, ls4S, in a speech at Springfield. llli
nois, he used tho following emphatic
language, while speaking of tho Missouri
Compromise:
"The Missouri Compromise had an origin
akin to that of the Constitution OF tho
United States, conceived in tho spirit OF
fraternal affection. and calculated 10 rcmore
forever the danger trhjch seemed TO threaten.
at some distant day, 10 serer The bonds Of
WniOn. All tho evidence Of psblc opinion Of
that day seemed to Indicate that this Com.
promise had been cnnodizEd in The hsdrts
Of the american peopie as sacred MRE,
which no RUTHLESS HAND would ever be
reckless enough to disturb
At tho time Of making this speech, tho
fact had not dawned upon tho mental vision
OF Mr.. Douglas, that this timo honored
compact, which was conceived IN tho spirit
OF fraternal affection" was unconstitutional.
This fact was loft to be dscovoro d at somo
later period, whom by tho discovery so me
cherished object vas to bn attained. Few
thought, whom thoy lstonod to these sentl-
monts of Mr. Douglas, that his would DO the
"ruthless hand" which was "reckless enough
to disturb this "sacrod thing" But such
is tho fact. Within SIX years his "ru thess
hand attacked and destroyed this compact
which had so long relieved tho people from
discussions of the vexed question of Slavery
II was compact with which both tho North
and the South wero satisfied it had allayed
sectional strife, and brought peace to tho
country. From tho timo of tho repeal OF
this compact dates tho bttor political war
faro on tho subject of Slavery which has
agitated tho country, and so nearly destroyed
the Union. Douglas is tho reckless poll
tician who was guilty of exciting this discord
between the North and the South. and vet,
with this record staring him full in tho face,
In his letter of acceptance of tho nomna-
tion at Baltimore, he is bold enough o do.
clare both Lincoln and Brccknridgo sec.
tional candidates, while he, in his "puro ma
tionality," is a middle candidate" run.
ming between these two factions. Every
one knows that that lotter was ono Of tho
ton to catch tho votes of those persons who,
in their zeal to savo tho Union would be as
!ikoly to vote for its 6ittorost enemy Us its
true supporter. But, unfortunately for
Douglas, this dodge was discovered and held
up to ridicule. In that lctter of acceptance
Douglas claims that non intervention by
Congress with Slavery in tho Territories,
(Which is Popular Srvoroignty distilled so as
TO answer como character of its own. is tho
ly ke..A l. 4 ~.
boneath il, tha, tho Judiciary must bo sus-
tanned; aud also in tho Same lcttor, ho in
dorsos tho platform with the appended res
olution which reads as follows
THAT il is in accordance with tho Cincin.
nati Platform, that during tho existence of
Territorial GovornmNnts. the measure of ro.
strict;on. whdtrurr il MAY be, imposed bv
the Federal Constitution on tho power of
the Territorial Legislature oVcr tho subject
of tho domestic relations as The same has
been or slItll horoaitor be finally determined
by tho Supreme Court Of tho United States
should bo respected by all good citiznns, and
enforced iOh prompGtude and ,fdSiity Jy
every branch of the Fedprnt Government"
Nov what has hoon" tho decision of tho
Supreme Court of tho United Statcs with
regard to tho "measuro of restriction on tho
power Of Il o Territorial Lcgislatu, over tho
subject of tho domestic relations = In tho
Drod Scott caso,ns reported in 49, How
nrd's Rop., tho Court decided: lst. "7h0k
the african race had no rights which hc
iohHc man tcds bound 10 respect; and that
the negro might Justly and Mwfuiiy 30 re.
ducod to sldrcry for his benefit" 2d. Every
citizon has right to tako with him into tho
Territory any article of property mh,ch Me
Constitution Of The Un,ied Stairs recognises
as property" 81. "IHc Constitution ri TMe
Unitrd Sintrs recognizes siaVes as property,
ana pledges The Federnk Government 10 pro.
tect IT," 4th Tho act of Congress. there.
fore, prohibiting q ctiZnn of tho United
States from taking with him his slaves when
he removes to the Territory in question to
reside, is an exercise of authority ovor pr.
yate property which is not WARRANTED by tho
Constitution"
Mr. Douglas must other deny any
knowledge of what had boon tho decision of
the Supreme Court of tho United States, or
openly confess the dupliclty of which ho is
guilty. To catch Northern votes, hc pleads
non-intervention; to pull tho wool over
Southern eyes, he throws out this resolution
at Baltimore. HippiIy for tho country this
scheme has boen dotcctod, aud its author
treated with tho contempt which he so
Justly merits. But. further, to show with
what reckless dishonesty Mr.. Douglas tutors
sentiments, prompted only by soIf interest
regardless of his previous positions. quote
from speech delivered by him in New
Orleans, in December, 1858 "Siarcs are
regarded as property and placed on an
equal footing with ull othor property -
Honco tho ownor of slaves, tho same rs tho
owner of any othor specios of property, has
right to remove 10 any Territory and
carry his property wih HIM"
At about tho same timo the above Pro-
Slavery sentiments wero uttered, Mr.
Douglas used the following language in IA
speech at Gdlosburg, Illinois
"The great fundamental priaciplr Of our
Government, is, that tho people of each State
and Territory shall be perfectly free TO decide
for themselves what snail be the nature and
character OF their institutions"
ask the friouds OF Douglas how those
two passages barmon'ze ? Tho difference
between the two is this; the ono was do.
signed for Southern ears, tho Othor for
Northern ears. The one Is as radical as
any Southern slavo.drivcr could demand
the other is substantially within tho non.
Intervention doctrine.
To show with what dishonest motive
ANA faa vhaN "a. n