New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-09-06

sonnd as ali the race will find that to fail the Npln
8srs IN single one of their demands lie 10 ioriei' e
Gem 1ass in t6s Nicholson Letter, undertook 70 40
oyesf favor 10 the South bu, Providence, pen8 On %
OF er side he got credit. Henry Clay, NE, ,ha
Southern STAKEHOLDER because ne saw ana e' f, The
Tsrr;to,ies was desc rted, if not repudated. pie
Webster for thinking and utterng the thong .ao
laws Of GSd would keep slavery sy Out az n South Dam
lei Dickinson with all his subserviency OF he
and conduct, was never forgiven, and never wv W,oo
for once declaring that be would vote ior tne
provso instructed or uninHructed And, hnaiyt
Judge Douglas after Laying ruthless hand on tne
Mssouri Compromise, under the lead OF Southern
Senator. and through Southern instgation simply be-
cause the effect expected was not produced by ina, ac
ton, is doomed TO political destruction.
Although Judge Douglas, to proptiate the South has
declared that under this doctrine LOT Squattef Sove-
reguty) they have converted tract OF free territory
into slave territory five times az large as the oaee OF
New-York" do not believe the South are to gain nor
the North loee anything by the repeal of the Missouri
restriction. II is very doubtful TO my mind whether
any Territorial act Of New-Mexico, or even law OF
Congress- establish Slavery in that territory any
or make king. The Supreme Court may declare 10
the contrary but when its dcta are absurd they VIII
be treated as they have been before as the sheeres
utilities. Yeti have no doubt that, notwithstanding
The indignation felt at the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise, had Mr. Pierces promise to make the ierrl-
torial Governments fair and impartial been kept
while the result would not have been different
the country would have acquiesced IN ,he
act. This also goes to show that the popular
sovereignty system is unreliable and unsafe. Pierce
made promise after promise, yet broke one after tae
o,her-making and breaking his own Governors and
giving up a deceived people, iSeuding women ana
CHILDREN 10 robbery, rapne, and murder IL was nos
until the whole North was impened to set at defiance
the Federal Government, and protect thelT ieIo".
citizens in Kansas that the peaceable inhaoants OF
the Territory had security either for their hges ther
liberty, or their property. Even in Nebraska,
at more recent day, federal Governor has n9llhed
the action Of the people in prohibiting slavery IN saas
Territory. And Congress itself, by the action OF
Democratic Senate, refuses the admission OF hsas
into the Union with republican form Of government
because she adopted Free. State CONSTITUTION, oy e
neares sainable method Of popular sovereignty are
not these also illustrations, most palpably IN poht,
against any reliance the Douglas theory either as
guaranty of sefgovement 10 the Territorial popala-
ions or the settlement of vexed question: or oil as
ripe peace 10 the country! All would seem TO depend
upon the character and disposition OF the Federal Adj
nnistraton for the time being. Indeed, there ID no
sovereignty in the General Government lseii, any
more than in the pc pie Themselves if the Baltimore
Convention, with Judge Douglas consent, 10 permit
ted TO enthrone the Supreme Court and proclaim the
immGcuacy Of its anuunclauone. For Judge DOueias,
IN his New Orleans speech of'Dec. b, 1913 accepta
the decision Of the Supreme Court in the bred SOFT
Gaze as authoritative interpretation Of the Con-
Misunderstanding that skares are property, to be
any other property" And the Baltimore patfOrm.
lafo accepted by Judge u. holds that the measure Of
''restriction imposed By the Federal Constitution on
" the poper Of the Territorial Legislature orer the
subject of the domestic relations as determined 6y
4" he Suprtme Court, shOHid be enforced by every
"branek of tie General Government" This is viz
tually the end of the argument az well as OF Popular
Sovereignty.
am ava that this whole matter has been hun
bred times presented in clearer and fuller form IMAM
could possibly present IT, and that conveniently ae-
cessible to the public; but should nevertheless have
been happy 20 hear from able representative man,
= Al k,ttr htuhu
would justify your departure from the old paths of
the party labored hard, with the result reversed, TO
come TO the conclusion and would therefore dare
to exhibit the by which was forced to stand
by the ancient landmarks"
will Just ray here that cannot zee how you get
at either logical beginning or ending OF your Popular
Sovereignty. The first man goes into Territory with
free labor another with slaves Are they 70 begin me
sauater conflict for sovereignty Or, are they ID wait
until they two TO one three TO two, or one hundred
TO seventyfve yet two thousand TO one thousand,
before the sovereignty becomes eonsttutonally pop
ular % And then, how are the two 10 one or two
thousand to thousand the may be, 70 arrive
at legal method of Slavery exclusion Or, they
succeed in that invention, how are they 70 set at def-
ance the indisputabe dctum OF the Supreme Court
In the irs. instance, you must surrender all title TO
and control the Territories, and you must Ignore
oil jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court over the S9uatter
Sovereign, then let loose the dogs OF civil war
and encounter domestic strife and deadly conflict. AT
the end Of any conflict if there should be survivors
sufficient 10 form State Government with the view
TO admission into the Union, will not your Popular
Sovereignty even then be subject TO the will OF Con-
eress and the decree of the Supreme Court Indeed
am al oss TO conceive how you are to arrive al any
practical application of your Popular" theory-yeld-
ing for the argument the difficulties of Congress and
the Judiciary. To my apprehension, you mast be
driven back TO Congressional exclusion DIVISION or
ese TO the deep and broad position that human Slavery
is purely local affair." existing only in sovereign
States by concesson-guaranteed against foreign inter
ference, but not 10 be extended exceptby common con-
cent. This seems to have been the view Of the subject
taken by the founders of the Government. II is very
questionable whether we are wiser more patriotic
than thew were.
am informed that yOu conceded at Palmyra that
the earlier action of the Government and holding Of
the Courts placed you at disadvantage upon the re-
cord though claiming in way that the principle OF
Popular Sovereignty 10 be maintained even in the
acts Of Slavery exclusion. You must acknowledge
however, fany such thing was designed 1t was never
exhibited in the squatter form. do not understand
the Ordinance of 1887 and have failed to comprehend
cotemE oraneous history, If your assumptions on this
point not altogether erroneous. L cannot hope in
short letter as this must be- TO produce all the readily
available proof against you, but will remind you OF
a few ineontroveItble facts in point. Down to about
1852, you will concede that the Democratic party lat
the North at least agreed that Congress had the pow
er-which 1t had previously used without dlspue-to
exclude Slavery from the Territories. The Ordinance
Of 17S was the act of the old Republican party, with
Thomas Jefferson at ts head and by its occasion and
connections was substantially made portion Of the
Constitution itself.
1t is undeniabe that considerations other than
moral adherence Of Slavery per Sc influenced the scs
of exelusionsuch for instance discourag1g emgra
ton from the old Slavery settlements 10 the fertile
Western Territories and the promotion Of the foreign
slave-trade in competition with home production, by
extending the Of slave terrtory-but the prevail
ing motive, particularly with Washington, Jefferson,
snd their iusrious cOmpatriots, present imita
ton and the ultimate eradication of the whole evil.
The act of cession by the sovereign State Of Virginia.
in Il. Nyan tha