Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-05-16
SPEECH OF
HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.

SPEECH OF
HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
In replv to Mr. .Seuard and Mr. TrumbuH-De-
lirered in the Senate of the United States, Fe6-
ruary 49, 1860.
Nix. President: I trust I shall be pardoned for
few remarks upon SO much of the Senator's speech
rs consists in an assault on the Democratic party,
and especially with regard to the Kansas Nebraska
bill, of which was the responsible author. 1t has
become fashionable nowadays for each gentleman
making speech against the Democratic party to re-
fer to the Kansas-Nebraska act as the cause of all
the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk
about the repeal of sacred compact that had been
undistnrbed for than quarter of century, as
il those who complained of violated faith had been
faithful to the provisions of the Missouri compromise
Sir wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or
abrogaion of that act except il was that the major
ity 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 for
ever and the entire South, without one exception in
this body was willing thus to abide by it, but the
fee-soi element of the northern States strong
as to defeat that measure and thus open the slavery
question anew. The men who now complain of the
abrogaton of that act were the very men who de-
nounccd it, and denounced all of us who were will
ling to abide by it long it stood upon the sta
book Sir, it was the defeat in the House of
Representatives of the enactment of the bill to ex
tend the Missouri compromise to the Pacific ocean,
after it had passed the Senate on my own notion
that opened the controversy of 1850, which ter
minated 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 a
great principle rebukng his doctrine of Intervention
by the Congress Of the United States to prohibit
slaeery in the Territories. Both parties, in 1852
pledged themselves to abide by that principle, and
thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the
Territories by act of Congress. The Wing 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 l repeat that their
resistance to carrying out in good faith the settle
ment of 1920 their defeat of the bill for extending
il to the Pacific ocean, the sole cause of the ag-
itation of $780, and gave rise to the necessity of es
tabshing the principle of non-interventon by Con-
gress with slavery in the Territories
Hence am not willing to sit here and allow the
Senator from New York, with all the weight of ar-
thorty he has with the powerful party of which he
is the head, to arraign and the party to which
bNong with the responsibility for that agitation
whefFests 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 numbers and having established
the principle of nntcrvcntion in the compromise
measures Of 1850 in lieu of it, the Democratic party
from that day to this has been faithful to the new
principle of adjustment. Whatever ngitation has
grown out of the question SINCE has been occasioned
by the resistance of the party of which that Senator
il the head to this great principle which has been
ratified by the American people at two presidential
elections. If he was willing to acquesce in the So
Tenn and repeated judgment Of that American peo-
pie 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 Ter
ritories. His entire argument rests on the assump
ton that the negro and the white man were equal
by Divine law and hence that all laws and constitu-
tons and governments in violation of the principle
of negro equality in violation of the law of God
That is the basis upon which his speech rests He
quotes the Declaration Of Independence 10 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 sefevdent that all men are created equal and
are endowed by their Creator with certain inaena-
&ble rights, among which are life liberty and the
pursuit Of happiness" Sir the doctrine of that Sc
nator and OF his party s-and have had to meet it
for eight years-that the Declaration of Indepen.
dence intended to recognize the negro and the white
man as equal under the Divine law, and 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 Constitution of the United States upon
the ground that it is contrary to the law of Cod
The Senator from New York has long held that doc.
trlne The Senator from New York has often pro-
claimed to the world that the Constitution of the
United States was in violation Of the Divine law, and
that Senator will not contradict the statement
have an extract from Of his speeches now before
me, in which that proposition is distinctly put FORTH
In speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1s4s. he
said: WV
Slavery is the sin of not some of the States ouv bu,
Of Them a OF not nationality but of all nations Ii
perverted and corrupted the moral sense of mankind deem
and universally and this perversion became universal
habits Of thought become fixed principles No Amer
S,as has yet delivered itself entirely from these habits
IN New iork are guilty Of slavery still by withhold
Inc Rnt OF suffrage from the race we have euancpa
ted ion in Ohio guilty in the same way by systen
o. black laws still more arsicratc and odous It writ
:n m the Constitution of the United States that five slave
shall count equal to three eemen as basis o
non; and 1t is written also. IN VIOLATION or DlYINl
ina. we shall surrender the fugitive save who take
There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, tina
the Constitution of the United States is in uiola
ton Of the Divine laa0 and therefore, is not to b
obeyed. You are told that the clause relating :
fugitive slaves being IN violation of the Divine law
~ not binding on mankind. This has been the dot
Urine OF the Senator from New York for years.
have not heard it in the Senate to-day for the frs
time have met in my own State for the last te
years, this same doctrine, that the Declaration
independence recognized the negro and the viii,
man as equal; that the negro and white man a,
equals by Divine law, and that every provision
our Constitution and laws which establishes i'm
quality between the negro and the white man.
void, because contrary to the law of God ST.
me senator from New York says, in the veY
speech from which have quoted, that New York
yeta slave State. Whya Not that she has ala,
within her limits but because the constitution