East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1860-03-15
Douglas and Davis ON Seward.
REMARKS OF
MIR. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS,
IN REPLY TO MR.. SEWARD.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 20, 1860.

Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr.. President, trust
| shall be pardoned for few remarks
upon so much OF the Senator's speech as
consists in an assault on the democratic
party, and especially with regard to the
Kansas n Nebraska bill, of which was the
responsible author. 1t has become fash
ionable nowadays for each gentleman
making speech against the democratic
party to refer to the Kansas n Nebraska act
as the cause of all the disturbances that
have since ensued. They talk about the
repeal of sacred compact that had been
undisturbed for more than quarter of a
century, as if those who complained of
that violation Of faith had been faithful
to the provisions Of the Missouri compro-
mise. Sir. wherein consisted the neces-
sity for the repeal or abrogation of that
act, except it was that the majority in the
northern States refused to carry out the
Missouri compromise in good faith |
stood willing to extend it to the Pacific
Ocean, and abide by it forever, and the
entire South, without one exception in
this body, was willing thus to abide by it;
but the free soil element of the northern
States was so strong as to defeat that
measure, and thus open the slavery ques-
lion anew. The men who now complain
of the abrogation of that act were the
very men who denounced it, and de-
nounced all of us who were willing to
abide by it so long as it stood upon the
statute-book, and we were trying to car
ry it out. Sir, it was the defeat in the
House of Representatives of the enact
mcnt 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 poll
cy, 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
abide 10y that principle, and thus stood
pledged not to prohibit slavery in the
Territories by act of Congress. The
whig party affirmed that pledge, and so
did the democracy In 1854 we only
carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska act,
the same principle that had been affirmed
in the compromise measures of 1850. /
repeat that their resistance to carrying
ont in good faith the settlement of 1850,
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 ] am not willing to sit here and
allow the Senator from New York, with
all the weight of authority he has with
the powerful party of which he is the
head, to araaign me and the party to
which / belong with the responsibility for
that agitation which rests solely upon him
and his associates. Sir, the democratic
party was willing to carry out the COM
promise in good faith. Having been de-
fcated in that for want of numbers, and
having established the principle of non
intervention, in the compromise measures
of 1852, in lieu of it, the democratic
party from that day to this has been
faithful to the new principle of adjust
ment. Whatever agitation has grown
out of the question since has been occa-
stoned 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 two Presidential
elections. If he was willing to acquiesce
in the solemn and repeated judgment of
that American people to which he appeals,
there would be negotiation in this country
now.
But. sir, the whole argument Of that
Senator goes far beyond the question of
slavery, even in the Territories. His en-
tire 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 violation of the priuciple Of negro
equality are in violation of the law of
God. That is the basis upon which his
speech rests. He 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, awe
hold these trnths to be self-evident, that
all men gre created equal, and are en-
dowed by their Creator with certain in
alienable rights, among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit Of happiness" y
Sir, the doctrine of that Senator and OF
his party is-and / have had to meet it
for four years--that the Declaration OF
Independence intended to recognize the
negro and the white man as equals under
the Divine law, AMI hence that 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 against
the consultation Of the United S,ates upon
the ground that it is contrary to the law
of God. The Senator from New York
York has long held that doctrine. The
Senator from New York has often pro
claimed TO the world that the constitution
Of the United States was in violation ol
the Divine law, and that Senator will no,
contradict the statement. j have an ex