Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-07-21

{
senator Douglas on Popular Sovereignty
Mr.. EDIToR;-I propose TO notice briefly
some of the ruling errors and absurdities o
an article entitled "Popular Sovereignty il
the Territories, which appeared in the Sep
tember number Of Harper's Magazine. The
writer, Stephen A. Douglas, is politician
notorious for the part he acted in Inaugural
ting the new and pernicious system of poll
tics which now disturbs the harmony and
threatens the peace and prosperity Of this
country.
Mr.. Douglas is a man Of considerable abil-
ity. But if his abilities are positive bis de-
fects are superlative; and the latter demand
notice because they are the causes Of many
Of the errors of the production we are now
considering, His mind was probably not
originally Of philosophical tendency
and his discipline and habits have not
been such as few could be subjected towith-
out injury. At an early age, and while
possessingan imperfect education, he bOlted,
with a reeklessness peculiar to himself into
the political arena He has written very lit
tie, and spoken much in popular democratic
assemblies which, Of late, are not composed
Of the most intelligent or refined citizens
He has harangued crowds that were as much
delighted by a vile epithet as they would
have been confounded and disgusted if they
had been addressed with profound and philO-
sophical reasoning.
His ambition to become an author is, there
fore, ill-advised. A decent regard for the
security Of his reputation should have in
duced him to publish such arguments in less
enduring form. The article before us. would
certainly have met with temporary applause
when set off by the graces of his personal
delivery; butts defects produce very disa-
greeable sensations in the mind of the careful
reader.
After stating in a few brief sentences the
importance Of the subject which he purposes
to discuss, Mr.. Douglas proceeds, las what
modern Democrat does not) to deal blow at
the "irrepressible conhict." This is chiefly
interesting as exhibiting the remarkable unity
of the Democracy Gin its irreconcilable oppo-
sition to the doctrines and principles Of the
Republican party" The Democratic party
is certainly unit in regard to the "irrepres-
sible conflict though in nothing else.
Mr. Douglas, noticing the confusion among
the expOunders of 'Popular Sovereignty p
proceeds to classify them according to the
different views which they hold upon that
subject. By an examination of the three clas-
ses into which he divides the Democracy, il
will be seen that a majority of that party un-
derstand popular Sovereignty in the people
Of a territory to consist in being compelled
by power, either legislative or judicial, OF
the General Government, to support and pro-
tect slavery in their midst
In other words they affirm that the design
of the f'Kansas and Nebraska Bill, that
Bill in which it is declared that its own intent
and meaning is ''not to legislate slavery into
the territories or to exclude it therefrom, but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only to the eonsti-
tuition Of the United States they affirm
that the meaning Of all this is that slavery
shall be forced upon the territories by authori-
ty Of the General Government. Such is
popular Sovereignty" Such is the freedom
that has been forced upon a reluctant people
BY two Democratic Administrations. Under
the pretense of giving the people of the ter
ritories more freedom, it has deprived them
Of all the rights which they possessed before
while it has only conferred upon them the
obligation to establish and protect slavery
The single word Kansas calls to mind abund-
ant proof for the support Of these conclu-
sions.
The very foundation of Mr. Douglas whole
argument is the proposition that ours is in
every. respect a Popular Sovereignty govern
ment. It is indispensable that he should
prove this proposition before he can conclude
that 'Popular Sovereignty" is the eonstitu-
tional policy for the territories. If he has
failed to do this his article is not worth the
ink used in printing it. Now if the term
Popular Sovereignty means anything it ex-
presses the absolute and uncontrolled power
Of government exercised by majority Of
the people. If it is not q mere .juggle it sig
ity. In a Popular Sovereignty government
the popular element must be unrestrained.-
Was the go7erpdsut 9of the United State;
formed upon such "a model2 Is such the
ruling principle of our constitution Con.
stitutionl the very fact that We have 9
Constitution completely refutes such. shallow
and empty sOphistry. For what purposI
does the Constitution exist2 Certainly no
to leave popular majorities perfectly uncon
troHed; but to check, to restrain them. The
Constitution enumerates certain things which
a popular maj ority shall not do. Why is thG
President Of the United States invested witt
the veto power, If it is not to restrain The
popular element in legislatiOn2 But it il
needless to enumerate particulars. Mr.. Doug
las position is too Palpably absurd to de
mand seTions combustion. It has no othel
1 sdppost than the venal opinions Of mercenary
/ politiciahsg The principles which he es
pouses were unknown to the administration
Of this government until the fatal year 1854
They were eonjured up, it is true, few
years before but they existed only in al
electioneefing epistle. They were not seri
1ously talked Of Every body regarded then
as the last weak and senseless ehnanatiol
from the OEertasked ambition Of an expiring
politician.
q Mr.. Douglas next enters upon long am
luminous survey of the early history of tn
Colonies; and all this for the futile puTpOs
of proving what nobody ever disputed, tina
they claimed the right Of deciding for them
selves whether they would hold slaves a
property. From all this long chapter of his
tory he pinches, out the lean and unservice
able conclusion that in forming new gov
eminent they would probably secure to them
selves those rights which they contended 70
under the old. Each State certainly did Sc
cure to itself the right Of regulating its do
nestle institutions. But that is no evidenc
that the same rights are granted to the Ter
ritories. If his argument proves anything
it proves too much, for it removes the dis
tinction between States and Territories.
could never have been intended that the Ter
ritories should enjoy all Of the privileges anl
immunities of States, for IN doing so the!
would cease to be Territories.
But the chief citadel of Mr.. Douglas de