Pomeroy weekly telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy, Meigs County, Ohio) 1860-1866, 1860-09-14
From the Rail Splitter.
Popular Sovereignty.
WHAT IT Is AND WHAT 1T IS NOT.


popular sovereignty, as applied to the
people of Territory: It constitutes
the whole capital and "stock in trade"
of Douglas and his party, and it is high
time that we fully and clearly under
stand just what is meant or rcomprehended
by the phrase, in the abstract; just what
means or amounts to as contained in the
Kansas Nebraska Bill. and just what it
to as taken in connection with
the platform on which Mr.. Douglas now
his speeches, and also with
the decision of the Supreme Court in
the Dred Scott case, which Mr.. Douglas
approves and endorses. We find Mr..
Douglas going about the country,
stump speeches, and advocating
as peculiar measure of his own, and
one which should entitle him to consid-
Grafton above that of any other man,
the principle OF popular sovereignty or
right of self government, as applied to
the people of the Territories. This
sounds well enough; indeed it sounds
well. It is a pleasing idea, this thing
of stself- government" it seems plausible
and fair, and withal is Aattering to the
self pride of the masses. It is ssharp
of thousand strings" and Mr.. Douglas
knows well how to play on it. But we
should not allow ourselves to be deceived
by sounding brass and tinkling Gym
baP'-there is too much at stake. The
question is, what does it all mean? Is
it merely catch phrase of ''glittering
generalities,' to attract and mislead the
people? Does it mean indiUiduaz self gov
ernment-the right of every one to do as
he pleases?- ?-or does it mean the right of
a people, of a community, or Territory,
in their organized capacity, to do as they
please; that is; to make and administer
their own laws? In short, what does it
mean? and, under all the circumstances,
what does it amount to? ,r5s .-
Mr.. Douglas has been proclaiming for
years past--and he. is still doing the
same thing-that according to- the Kan
sas=Nebraska bill The peaple Of a Terri
tory, the same as the people Of a State,
have a right to exclude, prohibit, or es-
tablish slavery, as they may see 6t.--
This we all know. But let me prove
this fact, for that is the principle on
which go in matters of this kind
On the 23rd of February, 1859, Mr..
Douglas made speech in the Uuited
States Senate, in reply to Senator Brown,
of Miss, and in justification of his own
course, as to the ''intent and meaning
of the Kansas Nebraska bill. In that
speech he said: 'aa'a. s'a -2@1ttfg7
II assert that in 1859, during the
whole of that campaign, l took the same
position as I do now, and none other;
and I will show that Mr.. Buchanan
pledged himself to the same doctrine
when he accepted the nomination of the
Cincinnati Convention. In his letter of
acceptance, he says,- referring u to the
Kansas Nebraska aot; This, legislation
is founded upon principles as ancient as
free government itself, and, in accord
ance with them, has 'simpy declared that
the people of o. Territory lake those Of a
State, should decide for themselves
whether slavery should or should not
exist within their limits / undertake
to say that tchererei. I ,eent thdt gear, has
coasse aoas aduoeated on that principle, as
laid down in his letter of acceptance.
The people of the North, at least, GER
tainly understood him to hold the doc
trine Of self goternme,t IN the Territories,
as well as iapste States x s2s.c <
I stand here defending the great princi-
pie of non-intervention by Congress, and
self government by the people of the
Territories. That is the Democratic
creed. The Democracy in the Northern
States shaVeso,understood it. IN 10 North
ern. Democratic State ever would have
voted for Mr., Buchanan, but for the fact
that he was understood to occupy that
position. 49, Congressional Globe, Feb. "a
1859; also, Life Of Douglas, By Derby d
jackson, page 215.raE 7,5L 81, sssr eaji
That last sentence, no doubt, is true.
No Northern State would probably have
voted for Mr.. Buchanan, if the people
had not been deceived and misled into the
belief that the people of the Territories,
under the Kansas-Nebraska bill, were to
be allowed to govern themselves, and to
be left perfectly free" as the act: de-
clares, to determine the slavery question
for themselves, the same as the people
of a State But were they left thus
free? Did the Kansas.Nebraska- bill
give them this right2F Did it place them
upon an equality with the people of a
State, in regard to the slavery questipn,
or any other question?7-for. this is what
the language of Mr.. Douglas and Mr.
Buchanan amounts to; if the people Of q
Territory are to be Ike those of State
in any given particular, or as touching
any matter of government, then, in that
particular or to that extent, they are on
an equality with the people of a State.-
This, of course, cannot be disputed
But were the people of Kansas and Ne.
braska left 'aperfeetlys free to regulate
their own affairs, and to prohibit, abol.
ish or establish slavery, as they please
the same as the people Of State? Was
this a lie that Mr. Douglas then pro,
claimed, and has continued to proclaim,
even up to this. time, or was it true?-
That's the question. q =, .,s..., =e.f
On another occasion, in his speech al
New Orleans, Dec. 6, 1858, Mr. Douglas
said: -
4.H have been repeatedly asked, here
and elsewhere, what. Lameant by popular
sovereignty in the Territories. My an
swer is, that I mean the right of the peo-
pie to form their own institutions, as
guaranteed in tho Kansas Nebraska
bin.''o4 81 :Tlg i,-d. hli4- esFl-.sissa a5r5
Just so.s And now let us see what
"right of the people Ito self f-govern,
ment, to popular sovereignty and Is
make their own laws and institutions, il
guaranteed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill
Let us see if they have this right, this
power of self government, "like the peo
pie of a. a.Stote,p as Mr.. Buchanan, Mr.
Douglas, and the whole Democratic