The Van Buren press., 1860-02-24
For the Vau Baren Press.
The Popular Sovereignty Contro
verSY.

So much pains have been taken by some
to misrepresent the position of Judge Houg-
las, and by others to induce the public mind
to test it by standard that is by no means
democratic one /; that it is hard to End
half dozen persons who understand it
alike. The democratic masses feel, insa.a
lively, with regard to the doctrines tktsarc
urged upon them with much earnestnSss so
by the anti-Popular Sovereignty politicians
that there is something about the logic they
are not used to, something ,orong, that they
have not the democratic jingle about them
that their understandings have been SO long
attuned to. But, as of yore, in such cases,
old democratic reason will soon shine out,
and dispel the fog that has been raised,
when everything will be clearly seen in its
true light. To assist in dispelling that fog
is the object of the present effort.
With respect to a government framed to
preside over number of Independent gov
ernments, each having a right to enjoy its
own peculiar, internal politics, institutions,
customs, DC, and where the people are de-
iure and dcfacto the sovereigns of the land
the legitimate source Of Pocer-it is easy
to understand that it should be funda-
mental principle Of this Federal govern
ment--that it must not interfere Il: fayor
or Ggainst any of the aforesaid internal pol
iticS, institutions. DC, of the respective
communities over which it presides. The
reason for this prohibition is too obvious
to require a moments reflection. And if
there was vacant territory belonging, in
common. to the people of these independ-
ent governments or States, out of which
new independent States were to be raised,
it is equally plain to understand that the
same non interference on the part Of the
Federal Government with regard to these
local politics, DC, must be observed to-
wards the new rising community. This is
beyond the shadow of 4 doubt, the true
character of our Federal system.
But we must expect to find in the course
of events, that, prompted by powerful mo-
tives Of self tinterest or biyotry some people
will be SO welded to their own polity Or in
stitutions as to be willing, nay, eager to OBJ
tain power from any source whatever to in
troduce them eceryechere. This is one of
the principal lever powers employed in the
work of intolerance and aggressilh upon
gard to the subject before US, this local big
otry or self-interest is the principal popu-
lar sentiment appealed to by the ultra lead
ing men Of the north, well as of the ul-
ira leading men of the South, as it was IA
few years since the moving power in the
cause of Know Nothingism
At the establishment of our Federative
system the L. S. Government, by the
consent of the people generally made a de-
parture from its legitimate sphere of action
by leSISlatlng to a certain extent against
one of the local institutions found in the
States. 1t prohibited slavery in a large
portion of the common territory, at the
same time recognized the slave as property
\ large portion of the people before that
time, and have from that day to this held
the negro to be a proper man, equal to the
white man in the human race, and being
such, could not, in this country be held as
property. BY the aid of this doctrine and
the aforesaid anti-slavery Legislature by the
general government, the general govern
ment has been made until the last few years
to continue this departure from its funda-
mental non-intervention principle. But our
Congressional legislation for the said last
few years upon the subject of the Terrific
ries has been in substance nothing more
than corrections of the departure aforesaid
placing it upon its natural primitive
ground. In opposition to the abolitionists
and the Wilmot Provisoists it simply de-
clares that the Federal Government is clo-
thed with the power to legislate for nor
against any local institution or local inter
est-slavery included. That in the eve of
the Constitution, each and every one of
them stood upon equal footing, leaving
each to advance AMONG the people when its
usefulness or popularity could make way
for it. Without the aid of Democratic
common sense upon the subject every
man conversant with the terms Of this leg
islation know this to be the truth. 1t was
SO expressed in words plain as English lam
guagc could make it. The discussion of the
U. S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case
re-affrmed t. In contradiction to the afore:
said doctrine of the aboiitioEists that the
negro was a man equal toathe white man,
and could not be held as property &c
The Court decided that the negro was not
such man. That the Constitution recoe-
nized the negro-slave as property, carrying
with it all the rights and privileges
incident to any other property, no
more, no less. That the U. S. Govern
have no power TO legislate for Or against
the institution of slavery or slave property
any more than it had to .legislate for or
against any other local institutions, and
having no such power itself, it could dele
gate none for that purpose. Therefore the
Missouri Compromise law, by virtue of
which Dred Scott claimed his freedom was
unconstitutional. Such was the substance
of the decision !; and the law would have
been just as unconstitutional if its object
had been to prohibit Polygamy.
Although the U. S. Government can del
egate no power for the purpose of doing
that which it cannot do itself, to wit es.
tablish..or prohibit, encourage or discourage
any local institution, whether it be slavery
or anti-slaverv. polygamy or monogamy,
in territory, yet in obedience to the funda-
mental principle of our democratic govern
menf, it is in duty bound, when the people
OF territory are in sufficient numbers to
require it, to permit those citizens to as
sumo their right to legislate for themselves,
and in the legitimate business of this legis-
lstion is included all those social interests
which the U. S. Government has no power
to regulate. This necessary duty. on the