Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1860-09-20

D ucfnan0e0
that right7 Cheers, Our fathers demanded
this inherent right of self government, not for sov.
ereign States, but for dependent colonies for de.
pendent Territories, dependent provinces. That
was their demand.
They did not pretend that they were sovereign,
but they aaid they were entitled 10 the inherent
right Of self government In their domestic con.
Germs Cheers. The Tories told them in reply
that the colonies had no other rights than those
which were granted by the King in the charter
and nasnuch "a the KING granted their rights,
the hiDg could take them away. There we're
some very respectable gentlemen in Virginia who
denied that proposition One George Washing.
ton and one Thomas jefferson, cheers,l and sew
eral other respectable gentlemen Of that class told
the British King that they did not get their rights
from him and he cond not take tnem away
They bad the hardihQod 10 sav to George the
Third Of England that they got their rights from
God Almighty, and intended to defend them
lGrcat applause. They did defend them, and
when they could not acquire the right Of local self
government without independence, they put forth
the Declaration Of Independence as the means Of
acquiring that right. But it seems that the deci.
pies Of George the Third, and Lord North Of this
state, understand the argument just as well As
their predecessors.
They tell us that the people Of the territories
have no rights except those which Congress gave
them in their organic act, organizing the therrito
ry, and that as Congress did not grant them the
power either to establish prohibit slavery. they
have no right 10 exercise that privilege. Further
| that inasmuch il territory Is the creature OF
| Congress, it has just whatever power Congress
/ gives it, and no more. There are some men in the
Territories who have read the history of the Rev
oluton, and who contend that they did not get
! their ights from Congress, and hence Congress
cannot take them away, There are men in the
Territories Of the United States blasphemous
| enough to believe, as jefferson told them, that
they got their rights from God Almighty, and
Congress cannot take those rights away from
them. Tremendous Applause. think you
will see that if our fathers in the Revolution were
justified in asserting the rights Of the colonies,
that then we are right this day. Applause. II,
on the contrary, the doctrine of nonintervention
and popular sovereignty ia wrong now, then the
Tories of the Revolution must have been right in
that controversy. The principle ia The same, and
defy any man to meet me in argument in rcia'
ton to it,
II does very we'll for men TO run around and
talk about "squatter sovereignty" and men NOV
ing to the Territories and forfeitng their rights,
but let me ask whether a irginian while he re-
mains in Virginia, does not possess the inherent
right of self.government7 Do you not think he
does7 Voices, "Certainly."l And II he does,
when he moves to Territory, does he forfeit that
right. ferries of"No!"l merely because he crossed
/
ry. [Cheersl If you think so, advise you to
read the works of John Taylor of Caroline especi-
| ally his work on "Constitution Construed" and
there you will find he discusses the question at
large, and shows that an Englshman. while he
remained in England, had the inherent right o'
| representation in Parliament, and voice in max
| ing the laws under which he lived and he did not
! forfeit that right when he moved to British con
only. He then goes TO prove that an American
| citizen, under one Constitution has the inheren,
right Of self. government in the State in which he
lives, and does forfeit the right when he moves
| to territory Of the United States. That is eae
whole principle and that is the doctrine Of Jeffer
son, Madison. Taylor of Caroline, Eppes, and all
your distinguished men Of that day | ask you
Virginians just to read the doctrine Of the fathers
on that subject, as we belong to the same school
of politics. [Cheers. ] claim nothing on this
subject that is not sactioned bv the canon1 of the
Virginia church. Applause and laughter.l
THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM AFFIRMED BY THE
| VIRGINIA DELEGATES.
! How long is it since the politicians Of Virginia
held that doctrine1 If recollect alight nearly
every district in Virginia when they appointed
their delegates to the Charleston Convention, af-
firned the Cincinnati platform. (Cheers)
If ain not mistaken, the two delegates from
the Petersburg district, when they were appoint
ed delegates; declared that they were opposed to
(Cheers.) III recollect Alright, nonntervention
was cardinal article in the creed of every Hunt
er man in Virginia. (Cheers.) If recollect
Alright very prominent citizen Of Virginia nearly
lost his life, if not his blood, by going for interven
ton. When did this doctrine of intervention
again become an agitating question in the Demo
cratic party7 In 1856 we were told that the hon
or and rights Of the South demanded the election
of a President on the Cincinnati platform, and if
YOU did not get him, you would dissolve the Union
Well, you got him, and now you are told by the
same men that ifa President is not elected on the
interv ention doctrine you must dissolve the Union
at once. Is it true that the Democratic principles
are one thing in 1856, and another thing in 1860?
VIRGINIA ALWAYS TRUE To DEMOCRACY.
| Virginia, thank God, has stood true to the Dem
ocratic organization and to Democratic candidates,
from the beginning of the government to the pres
cnt day. Other States have varied. All New
| England has shot off at times into tangent;
| New York has gone wildly against the Democra-
cy at times; Pennsylvania has often defeated US,
and the same may be said of Ohio, Indiana North
/ Carolina, Georgia, and almost every State except
, Virginia Virginia always stood true TO TIE or
ganization. true to to the platform, true to the
nominees, and it is the pride of every Virginia
Democrat, that when the flag trailed in the dust,
that dishonor did not touch the Old Dominion
| Enthusiastic ard long continued applause)
THE CLAIM OF iLLINois--wHY HER PEOPLE ARE
CALLED SUCKERS.
Illinois has some little claim for a share Of that
glory. About the year l776, a man by the name
of George Rogers Clarke, applied to the Govern
or of Virginia, and suggested to him that as peace
might at any time be declared between Great Brit
ain and the colonies, ii would be well for to be
in the possession of the Northwest territory
that which is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi-
gan and Wisconsin-so that when the commission
ers came to negotiate the treaty of peace,we might
act on the well known principle of mi possidetas
each party holding all they had in possession. he
suggested TO the Governor that he should permit
him to 70 out to the North west conquer the
country, and hold it until the treaty of peace
when we would become possessed Of IL. The
Governor consented and sent him across the noun
tains to Pittsburg. From there he and his com
panv hoated down the Ohio river on RATS to tn,
falls where Louisville now is, and after remaining
there a short time, they again took TO their raft
; and floated down TO the Sanes, Just below Shaw
neetown in Illinois Here they took up their marc
across the country to Kaskasiu, where there wer
, a number of French who had formed settlemer
there. and by means of guide they reached IN
, Chuaw river, and encamned near the house OF re
ter Mcrand, some little distance from the town.
, You see am well acquainted with the locality
+ Laughter and applause. They reached there a
i night and early the next morning Clarke got nj
: little army Of rarmu'iins together, (tor they ha
. no army wagons with supplies, no snter ana n
stores and hy this time began TO look ragged an
wretched enough and took up his line of march 70
E the little French town of Kaskasia. Ii was sum
ner and very hot day, and as he entered tn
town ne saw the Frenchmen belonging to !
T. sitting quietly on the little verandahs in front