Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-09-15


Carl shurz Popular Sovereignty.
The grandest republican demonstration of
the campaign, whether regarding its magni-
tude, its enthusiasm, or the admirable and in
vincible statements OF its orators, took place
on Thursday evening in New York. The vast
spaces of the Cooper Institute were thronged
with multitude moving by a common i'm
pulse for the achievement of one grand result.
The speech of Carl Shurz, both for its pure
and logical statement of political measures
and policy, and for its brilliant and eloquent
invectve, will ensure its author the high rank
OF which he is worthy among living orators
Hon. James o. Putnam, closing brief speech
before him, paid to him high compliment, by
speaking Of him as g one who, having
lighted his genius at the fires of freedom
which in Europe in 1913 famed to the heav-
ems, had learned on these shores, which had
welcomed him, that liberty brings her richest
offerings to the shrine of Genius, which in
turn pays to Liberty its homage and its wor-
ship" The speech of Mr. Shurz was mas
terly and complete review of the record of
Judge Douglas on the question of popular
sovereignty" since it has had place in our
| politics. Passing over his connection with
Kansas, he said :
The development of the popular sovereignty
doctrine is one of the most instructive chapters
in the history of our days. 1t shows how ca
silly the popular mind can he obfuscated by
sophistica plausibity, and how easily correct
| principles are lost sight of in the confused
| struggle of interests and aspirations Future
| generations will scrutinize with curious aston
! ishment the history of our days, and wonder
at the temporary success of SO transparent
! fraud. Permit me brief depression.
Popular sovereignty, in the true sense OF the
term, means the sovereignty OF all individuals,
50 regulated by law as to protect the rights
and liberties of any one against the encroach- |
ments of any other, and so organized by polit- |
cal institutions as to give common express |
ion to the collective will. Its natural basis is
the equality of the rights of all men. Its nat
ural end is the protection of all individuals in
the exercise of their rights and in the enjoy
ment of their liberties. Hence it precludes
the idea of slavery in all its forms Apply
this true popular sovereignty to the terrific
ries, and we are willing to accept it-nay, it is
the very thing which we are contending for.
But is this what Douglas, in the Nebraska
BILL contemplated By no means. His pop
uar sovereignty is based upon the assumption
that one class OF men has the power-has the
right-to strip another class of their natural
rights, and to hold them as slaves.
For arguments sake, let us follow him in
his course of reasoning, and suppose the white
population of the territories had the right to
hold portion of the inhabitants as property.
So, we have to lower the standard of popular
sovereignty one degree Listen to the Ian
guage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill:
at is the true intent and meaning of this act not
to egislate slavery into any state territory, to
exclude it therefrom but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions
in their way subject only to the constitution of
the United Staes.''
At first, one WOULD suppose this bill gave the
people OF the territories the sovereign right to
introduce slavery, provided, always, that
slavery could not 20 there unless introduced
by positive act Of territorial legislation. Is
that what Douglas principle of popular sover-
eighty contemplated By no means For,
according to him, Shareholder may introduce
his slave property, and thereby introduce and
establish slavery in a territory without that
positive act Of territorial legislation.
We have, therefore, to lower the standard of
popular sovereignty another degree One
would suppose that slavery so being admitted
at first, the people Of the territory would have
at least the sovereign right to remove and ex,
clude it by a positive act OF territorial egisla-
ton. Is that what Judge Douglas principle
of popular sovereignty contemplated BY no
means He told you at first that was a ques-
ton to be decided by the supreme court, then
he told you that the sovereignty of a territory
remains in allegiance, suspended in the United
States in trust for the people until they shall
| be admitted into the Union as state and, at
last, after the Illinois campaign, he dropped
the expression, Excluding slavery" altogeth-
| er. 1t is significant that the attempts OF the
| people of Nebraska and Kansas to exclude
slavery by law were promptly put down by
the veteoS OF the governors OF those territories
Vetoes exercised by virtue of the power con-
ferred on the territorial governments by Doug
las own Nebraska bill.
Thus we have descended two great steps
from the true idea of popular sovereignty
without having reached Judge Douglas great
principle and you will perceive that the true
popular sovereignty has already disappeared
long ago. But let us lower the standard of
popular sovereignty still another degree, and
we may hope that the deeper we sink the clos
er we may approach Judge Douglas position.
AT last we find him not with principle but
with an assumption. 1t matters not, said he
in his Freeport speech in August, 1858 =
at matters not what way the supreme court may
hereafter decide as to the abstract question: whether
slavery may go may not 90 into territory under
the constitution, the people have the lawful means
to introduce it or exclude it they please; for the
reason that slavery cannot exist day an hour
anywhere unless is supported by local police regu-
lations. Those police regulations only be estab-
lished by the local Legislature and if the people
opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to
that body who will, by unfrendly legislation, pre
vent the introduction of il into their mdst.'
This then is the great principle of popular
sovereignty. 1t contemplates, not the general
exercise and enjoyment of equal rights; not
that slavery cannot go into territory unless
the people introduce it by law; not that the
people have the sovereign right to exclude it
by direct act Of territorial legislation; but that
they may annoy and embarrass the STAKEHOLDER
IN the enjoyment of his slave property so as
to tease slavery out of the territory if they can
| If, Ten years ago, man had undertaken to call
this popular sovereignty, the people would
have suspected him of serious mental derange-
ment. Is not really this kind of popular SOW
ereignty, according to Mr.. Lincoln's striking
illustration, "as thin as the homeopathic soup
that was made by boiling the shadow of a
pigeon that had been starved to death?" 1t
would seem impossible to make il any thinner,
and yet Mr.. Douglas undertakes this incred-
IDLE task. After having tried to deude the
voters of Illinois into the belief that consist
emily with his position, the people Of the ter
rltory may, in some roundabout way, remove
slavery, this true champion of freedom" goes
South and proves there that slavery has
| legal existence in the territories. We find him
at New Orleans, and the same man who at
Freeport had told the people of Illinois that it
mattered not what the supreme court might
decide, as to the abstract question, whether
slavery may or may not go into a territory
the same man speaks to the people of Louis.
lana as follows:
81, in common with the Democracy of Illinois, ac-
cept the decision of the supreme court of the u. s.
IN the case ofDred Scott as an authoritative inter
pretation ofthe constitution. In accordance with
that decision we hold thatsayes are property; and
| hence canal fOOtinp with other nron a nd