The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-02-02
D. G..
Douglas and Popular Sovereignty.
A SPEECH BY CARL SCHURz,
IN HAMPDEN HALL, SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
JANUARY 4, 1860.

are pressing upon the popular mind, 1t is a
common thing 10 see variety of theories
springing up, which purport to be unfailing
remedies, and to effect speedy cure. Men,
who look only at the surface of things, will, like
bad physicians, pretend to remove the disease
itself by palliating its most violent symptoms,
and viii astonish the world by their inventive
ingenuity, no less than by their amusing as
surance. But a close scrutiny will in most
cases show that the remedies offered are but
new forms of old mistakes.
OF all the expedients which have been in
vented for the settlement of the slavery ques-
ton, Mr.. Douglass doctrine Of popular sover-
eighty is certainly the most remarkable, net
only by the apparent novelty Of the thing, but
By the pompous assurance with which it was
offered to the nation as perfect and radical
cure. Formerly, compromises were made be-
tween the two conflicting systems of labor, by
separating them by geographical lines. These
compromises did indeed produce intervals Of
comparative repose, but the war commenced
again, with renewed acrimony, as soon as n
new bone of contention presented ITSELF The
system of compromises a whole proved a
failure. Mr.. Douglass doctrine of popular
sovereignty proposed to bring the two antago-
nistic elements into immediate contact, and to
let them struggle hand to hand for the suprem-
predicted the slavery question would settle
itself in the smooth way of ordinary business.
He seemed to be confident Of success; but
hardly is his doctrine, in the shape of law for
the organization of Territories, put upon the
statute book, when the struggle grows fercer
than ever, and the difficulties ripen into a
crisis. This does not disturb him. He sends
forth manifesto upon manifesto, and even during
the State campaign of last fall, he mounts the
rostrum in Ohio, in order to show what he
can do; and, like a second Constantine, he
points his finger at the great principle of pop
ular sovereignty, and says to his followers
" In this sign you will conquer" But the tend
ency of events appeared unwilling 10 yield TO
his prophecy. There seemed TO be no charm
IN his command; there was certainly no victory
in his sign. He had hardly defined his doc
trine more deliberately than ever before, when
his friends we're routed everywhere, and even
his great party is on the point of falling to
pieces. The failure is magnifcently complete.
There certainly was something in his theo-
RES that captivated the masses. / do not speak
of those who joined their political fortunes to
his, because they saw in him a man who some
day might be able to scatter favors and plumber
around him. But there were a great many,
who, seduced by the plausible sound of the
words popular sovereignty" meant to have
found there some middle ground, on which the
rights of free labor might be protected and
secured, without exasperating those interested
IN slave labor. They really did think that two
conflicting organizations of society, which are
incompatible by the nature of things, might be
made compatible by legislative enactments.
But this delusion vanished. No sooner was
the theory put to a practical test, when the
construction of the Nebraska bill became no
L. &c tlo,
struction Of the Constitution had been before.
Is this proslavery, or is it anti-slavery? it was
asked. The South found in it the right to
plant slave labor in the Territories uncondi-
sionally, and the North found in ii the right to
drive slavery out of them. Each section of the
country endeavOred to appropriate the results
of the Nebraska bill to ITSELF and the same
measure, which was to transfer the struggle
from the halls of Congress into the Territories,
transferred 1t from the Territories back into
Congress; and there the Northern and the
Southern versions of the Nebraska bill fight
each other with the same fury with which the
.Southe and the Northern versions of the Con-
stituhon have fought each other before. What
does tbe Constitution mean in regard to slavery?
Thai Question remains to be settled. What
does tue Nebraska bin mean2 This question
depends upon the settlement Of the former
first to know what the true intent and meaning
of the Nebraska bill and the principle of popu-
lar sovereignty is. He is said to be a states
man, and 1t must be presumed that his meas
ure rests upon a positive idea; for all true
craftsmanship is founded upon positive ideas.
La order to find out Mr.. Douglass own def
milton Of his own "great principle we are
obliged to pick up the most lucid of his state.
ments as we find them scattered about in nu-
mer,lus speeches and manifestoes. After null
hilarious crossings upon the sea Of platforms and
arguments Mr.. Douglas has at last landed at
the following point: " A slave" says he in his
famous Harper Magazine article, a slave, with
: in the meaning of the Constitution, is a per-
son held to service OF labor in one State, m
der the laacs Mereof mot under the Constitu-
ton of the United States, or under the laws
thereof, nor by virtue of any Federal authority
whatever, but Wgder the lars Gf'Hte particular
State arhere such sercice or labor mag be due
This is clear; and with his eyes firmly fixed
upon the people of the North, he goes on: " If,
as Mr.. Buchanan asSer,., slavery exists in the
= Territories by virtue of the Constitution of the
United States, then it becomes the imperative
duty of Congress, TO tie performance Of achict
ere, member IS bound Gy hiS conscience and
has otlth, and from lchich no consideration Of
policy or erpedieRcy can release him, to pro
vide by faw such adequate and complete pro-
lection as IS essential to the enjoyment of All
important right secured by the Constitution
in one word, 10 enact general slave code for
the Territories" Rut Mr.. Douglas is not sat
isfed with this. N order 10 strengthen his as
sumption. and to annihilaiG Mr.. Buchanan's
construction of the Nebraska bin ST. more, he
proceeds: The Constitution being sniform
everywhere within the dominions of the Uni
II -. IL 10. of tho loy,H
anything in the Constitutions or laws of any
'of the States to the contrary notwithstanding
why does not slavery exist in Pennsylvania
Just as well as in Kansas or in South Carolina
I by virtue ofthe same Constitution, since Penn
Ssylvania is subordinate to the Constitution il
: the same manner and to the same extent al
South Carolina and Kansas"
Just so. Mr. Douglas having been so posi-
tive, he cannot deuy Us the privilege of maxim;
few logical deduciio from his own premises
J We expect him to proceed in tie following man
ner: I" Since slave is he'd under che laws of
State, and not under the Constitution or tn
laws of the United States, Slavery erists on.
bv riyfue of local lalr," OF, as the Court of Ap
peals Of Kentucky expressed it, the right L
hold slave exists only BY p0sitjre lar Of
municipal character, and has no foundation il
Sthe law of nature, or the unwritten and com
mon law" If slavery cannot exist except b
virtue of local law of municipal character,
follows, SIS an irresistible consequence, that
slsyeholdes cannot hold slave as property j
a Territory where there is no local law of mt
nicipaI character establishing that right G
property. And, further, the right to hold a slav
having no foundation Is the law of nature, G
the unwrittea and common law, We are force
10 the conclusion that slave, bbSught by hi
owner upon the sol of a Territory before tn
TIE rritorial Legislature have enacted laws &