The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-03-14


great deal more harmonious than what il is
We trust thft all Of his spesches hereafter will
oe as DeAoeratic as the following:-
JUDGE DOUGLAS REPLY TO
~, NlEs. SEWARD.
fm the Senate, Feb. 2S, 1850.
sgMr. DoFafAs. Mr. President, trust shall
b, ,pardoned Tor few remarks upon so much Of
the SseRtOr'S speech as consists in an assault
oa,the. Democratic party. and especially with re-
gard to the Kansas Nebraska bill, of which
was. the responsible author 1t has become
fashionable nowadays fer each gentleman
making speech against the Democratic partv
To-. refer to the Kansas Nebraska act as the
cause of all the disturbances that have since
.nsued. They talk about the repeal OF sacred
compact chat had been undisturbed for more
than quarter of century, as il those who
complained Of that violation OF faith had been
hithal to the provisions to the Missouri COM
promise. Sir, wherein consisted the necessity
:. for the repeal or abrogaton of that act, EXCEPT
twas that the majority in the northern States
refused to carr, out the Missouri compromise in
good lalth! stood willing to extend it to the
Pacliic ocean, and abide with it forever, and the
entire South without one exception in this body
was willing thus to abide by 1t; but the free
soil element Of the northern States was 50 strong
as to defeat that measure, and thus open the
slavery question anew. The men who now
complain of the abrogation of that act were the
very men who denounced it. and denounced all
ofus who were willing to abide by it so long as
1t stood upon the statute-took, and we were
trying to carry it out Sir, it was the defeat in
the House Of Representatives Of the enactment
OF the bill to extend the Missouri compromise
to the Pacific ocean, after it had passed the
Senate on my own motion, that opened the
controversy of 1850, which was terminated by
the adoption Of the measures Of that year.
We carried those compromise measures over
the head Of the Senator from New York and
his present associates. We, in those measures,
established great policy, rebuking his doctrine
Of intervention by the Congress of the United
States to prohibit slavery in the Territories.
Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to a.
bide by that principle, and thus stood pledged
not to prohibit slavery in the Territories by
the act of Congress. The Wing party affirmed
that pledge, and SO did the Democracy. In
1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas Ne.
braska act the same principle that had been af-
firmed in the compromise measures Of 1885,
! repeat that tEeir resistance to carry out in
good faith the settlement of 1920, their defeat
of the bill for extending it to the Pacific ocean,
was the sole cause of the agitation of 1850, and
gave rise to the necessity of establishing the
principle Of non intervention by Congress with
slavery in the Territories.
Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow
Che Senator from New York. with all the weight
Of authority he has with the powerful party Of
which he.is the heal, to arraign me and the
party to which belong with the reSp)nsibil-
ty for that agitation which rests solely upon
him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic
party was willing to carry out the compromise
in good faith. Having been defeated in that
for the want Of members, and having establish
Ell the principle Of noa-in ervantion in the
compromise measures Of 1850, in leu OF il, the
Democratic party from that day to this has been
faithful to the new principle of Adjustment
Whatever agitation has grown out Of the ques-
tion since, has been occasioned by the resistance
of the party Of which that Senator is the head,
to this great principle which has been ratified
by the American people at the two Presiden-
tial elections. II lie was willing to acquiesce
in the solemn and repeated judgment Of the A
msrican people to which he appeals, there would
be no agitation in this country now.
But. sir, the whole argument of that Senator
goes far beyond the question Of slavery, even in
the Territories His entire argument rests on
the assumption that the negro and the white man
were equal by divine law, and hence that all
laws and constitutions and governments in vio-
lation Of the principle ofnegro equality, are in
violation Of the law Of God. That is the basis
upon which his speech rests. lie quotes the
Declaration OF Independence to show that the
fathers Of the Revolution understood that the
negro was placed on an equality with the white
man, by quoting the clause, 1--WE hold these
truths to be self evident, that all men are Great
ed equal, and are loved by their Creator
with certain inalienab,. rights, among which
arc life, liLegty, and the pursuit OF happiness"
Sir, tie doctrine OF that Senator ana OF h's par
ty is-lnl I have had 10 meet it To- four years
that the 4cllration p independence iutend-
cd to recogniz, the negro and the white mGn as
EQUALS under the Divine law and hence tina;
all the provisions Of the Constitution OF the
United States which recognize slavery are in
violation Of the Divine law. In other words, it
is an Argument agsinst the Constitution OF the
United States, upon the ground that it is con-
trary TO the law Of Col. The Senator from
New York has often p, GGlameI to the world
that the Constitution of the United States was
in violation OF ths Divine law, and that Senator
will not contradict the Statement. have an
extract from one Of his speeches now before me,
in which that proposition is distinstly put forth
In speech mlls in the Safe Of Ohio, in 49,
4s, he said;
aSavery is the sin OF not some Of the States
onivg but o, them oil; OF not one nationality, but
ofall nations. 1t perverted and corrupted the
moral sense Of nan..sind deeply and universally,
md tbis peryersion bscainc universal habit
~ -rss. = ,kn..,I,t. koa1rn,y fixed prjncipIes