Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-09-28
institutions against the disgusting schemes

| of northern demagogues.
But northern man also was listening
with indignant astonishment to Douglas $
! speech in favor of the New Sedition law
that was the brave John Hickman of Penn
! sylvania, the anti-Lecomp democrat, who
/ believed what he said. And when he let the
| Senate chamber he broke out in the words,
" On thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt
thou eat all the days of thy life"
DOUGLAS ORIGINAL IDEA.
! 1t has always struck me as very remarka-
! bic, and it may have occurred to a great
many of you, that Mr.. Douglas mind, with
all its acuteness and fertility and resources.
is exceedingly barren in original conception.
All the speeches he has delivered since 1854
carry the peculiar flavor of staleness about
them. They contain nothing but some ster-
| eotyped and somewhat commonplace ideas,
! placed in a sOnOrous, mellow swell Of Ian
guage which derives its principal charm from
the animal vigor and energy with which it is
puffed out.
Yes, his speeches do contain one original
idea, and [ tell you it is bright one 1t
belongs all to him-nobody advocated it
before, and nobody will hereafter. We have
been laboring under the impression that
Douglas did not care whether slavery be voted
up or down; but we must beg his pardon
it turns out that he does care; for the only
original idea that he can boast of is that
slavery must necessarily exist for the sake Of
-rarietg. Laughter. Don t laugh, pray
you; it is a very serious matter-lt is the
fundamental principle upon which Mr..
Douglas whole craftsmanship rests and as
he is the greatest statesman alive it certainly
deserves a very serious consideration. He
tells US that it is the very issue upon which
he conducted the canvass in Illinois in 1858
it is the very ground upon which he placed
ths necessity of his Conspiracy bill, and he
has peddled it all over the Union in number
less speeches.
The original idea, as expressed in his own
language, i, simply this q" | assert said he
in his speech at the opening Of the canvass
of 1888, o that the great fundamental prin-
eiple which underlies our complex system Of
State and Federal Governments, implies
diversity and diSSimuarity. III the local
institutions and domestic affairs Of each and
every State then in the Union, or thereafter
u be Admitted. | therefore conceive that
Mr. Lincoln has totally misapprehended the
great principles upon which our Government
rests. Uniformity in local ana domestic
affairs would be destructive of States rights,
Of States s0vereignty-Ot pers nal liberty
and personal freedom. " henevtr the doctrine
of uniformity is proclaimed that all the
States must be free OF slave that all labor
must be white OF black that all the citizens
Of the different States must have the same
privileges, or must be ruled by the same reg
ulati1ns, vou have destroyed the greatest
safeguards which our institutions have thrown
around the rights Of the citizen. From this
view of the ease | am driven irresi7tabiy TO
tho conc,us on that diversity, dissimul4rity,
rGri1V in all our local and domesti, institG-
tions Is the great safeguard Of our liberties
repeat, that uniformity in our
institutions is neither pOssblen1r desirable.
This may sound very profound, but ii Will
not require many words to show You how
| exceedingly ridiculous it is. Whatever Your
; opinions Of the Judges statesmanship may
! be, permit NE to say that whenever he at
tempts to act the hiosopher, he becomes
not to put too fine apoint upon it. very funny
His argument is that there is a variety of
I interests or domestic aff1irs in the country 4.
that a variety Of Institutions grows out of
them that upon this variety Of our institu-
tioh, our federal system of government rests
| that the FEDERAL system OF government is the
great safeguard of our liberties that conse-
! quenty, in order to preserve our liberties {
is necessary to preserve variety OF domestic
affaIrs and local institutions. The question
arises, if that variety Of domestic affairs and
! institutions did not exist, would that render
| the federal system Of gOvernment impossible ?
| With other words, would people, among
whom there is no such variety of domestic
| affairs and local institutions be incapable Of
! freedom7
| The original States entered into union as
/ separate OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES distinct and
separate on the ground OF a variety OF inter
| ests, or for any other reason, Is needless to
! discuss: for if their institutions and
! interests had been ever 50 uniform, il IS
evident that they could and would not have
consolidated. But conclusive refutatiOn Of
| the judges theory lies nearer. The people
of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and
! Wisconsin, are nearly all depending upon
the same resources-these States are ali es-
sentially agricultural, and besides, have some
| shipping interest upon the great lakes Their
domestic affairs and local institutions are
essentially the same Their system Of labor
is the same-neither of them holds slaves.
| The uniformity of Free Labor was introduced
/
the Judges theory, they must consolidate il
there is among them no variety of domestic
affairs and local institutions which keep them
asunder. 1t might be said that they cannot
consolidate now on account OF constitutional
obstacles. Granted, for arguments sake.
But that vast extent of land was consolidated
once, in one, great solid mass, called the
| North western Territory. Why did 1t not
remain consolidated Why was it cut up
into different Territories and States, since
! their domestic interests were the same, their
local institutions the same, their system OF
labor the same. There was complete uniform
ity, and yet the very opposite of consolidation.
All these things remain essentially the same.
And DO they desire to consolidate ? And Is il
necessary to make half Of them Slave States,
in order to keep them asunder 1t Is pre-
! posterous. But this example shows that not
Mr.. Lincoln, but Judge Douglas must have
entirely misconceived the source from which
our political institutions spring.
That source is nothing else but the ia
stInct OF self government apimating our pcO-
pie. Why DO We cut up our States into
counties and townshlps~-oyen the States in
which the interests and domestic aflirs Of
the people are everywhere quite uniform
For the simple reason that the instinct OF
self-government demands that all the iuuc-
tions of sovereignty which the people can
exercise by direct action should remain in
the hands of the people and that all politi-
cal power which cannot be exercised by that
direct action should be 50 organized as to re-
main as near the original source ofsoycreign-
ty as possible. This renders necessary such
divisions and local organizations as viii
place the direct administration OF the near
est home affairs Immediately into the hand'
of the people The affairs little more re
mote in general are intrusted to the Stat'
Governments, subject to the immediate con
troll of the people; while tho affairs Of in
terests still more remote in general are .pu
into the hands of the Federal Government
THIS rsmifcation, division, and subdivision
of political power is carried out no les
where there is uniformity of domestic at
fairs and local institutions, than where ther
exists variety. 1t will remain such Just q
long as the people insist upon administorin,
these afflirs by as direct an exercise of soy
ereignty as possible and no longer To pre-
tend that this ramfcation Of political powe
into complex graduation of functions canno
, eyist without there bsinp-a variety of inter