The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-02-02

| mE- DUugldS dfuDltlOn uiSut nave UcCu
satisfied with this ignominious exploit. But
the necessities of the popular-sovereignty
doctrine do not stop there. After having tried
to explain away the fundamental principles
underlying this Republic, which are hostile to
slavery and its extension, Mr.. Douglas finds it
exceedingly inconyenient to encounter facts
which prove, beyond doubt, that these princi
Piles, from mere theoretical existence, rose to
practical realization. Popular sovereignty
which is at war with the doctrines of the Dec
laration ofIndependence, demands the slaughter
of the ordinance of 1884, and Mr.. Douglas IS
| up to the task. He does not stop at trihes.
And here we must return to the Harper Mag
azine manifesto. He leads us through CEN
tury of colonial history, in order to show that
the people of the colonies claimed the right to
legislate on the subject of slavery. And, re-
markably enough, all the instances quoted
show uniform tendency adverse to the pecu-
culiar institution. Mr.. Douglas then proceeds
to discover the germs of his popular-sovereignty
doctrine in the first Congressional legislation
concerning the Territories / will not under
take to criticise that singular historical essay,
| although some of its statements are such as to
make the freshmen of our colleges smile.
The Statesman Douglas does not seem to
be aware that the ability to read history ought
to precede the attempt to write it. Laughter
anu cU66TSsI ne IeduS us Ddck W the OOil-
gress of 1884. Mr.. Jefferson and his colleagues
have just executed the deed of cession of the
Northwestern Territory, and the same Mr..
Jefferson, as chairman Of committee, then
submits "a plan for the temporary government
! of the Territories coded or to be ceded by the
individual States to the United States" Mr.
Douglas proceeds to describe how the Terrific
rial Governments were to be organized, what
rights and powers were put into the hands of
the people, and how they were to be exercised
and, after having demonstrated that the term
new States meant the same thing which is
now designated by Territories" he comes to
the conclusion that the spirit pervading that
plan was in exact consonance with his doctrine
of popular sovereignty" Mr. Douglas osten-
tatiously calls this the Jeffersonian plan"
4" 1t was" says he, the first plan of govern
ment for the Territories ever adopted in the
United States. 1t was drawn by the author
of the Declaration of independence, and re-
vised and adopted by those who shaped the
issues which produced the Revolution, and
formed the foundations upon which our whole
system of American government rests" But
Mr.. Douglas skips rather nimbly over the sig
nificant fact, that the same "author of the
Declaration of Independence" put into that
plan proviso, ercladiag St0Ue,y from, the Ter
ritOries. Was that a mere accident? Mr.
|
his opinion, the exclusion Of slavery by Con-
gressional legislation was by no means incon-
sistent with the spirit of popular sovereignty"
which MIR. Douglas discovers in the plan of
1884; but this does not disturb Mr.. Douglas.
The fifth article, says he relating to the
prohibition of slavery, having been rejected
by Congress, never became part of the JET.
fersonian plan of government for the Terrific
ries, as adopted April 23d, 1884" Although
with large numerical majority in its favor,
(sixteen to seven,) this article did indeed fail
to obtain constitutional majority, the vote of
New Jersey not being counted, in consequence
of there being but one delegate from that State
present; yet it had been drawn up by Mr..
Jefferson, introduced by Mr.. Jefferson, and
sustained by Mr.. JeHerson's vote. Neverthe
less, MIR. Douglas persists in calling plan,
from tChich tie peculiar .Je6crS0nidR feature
had been struck ont, the "Je6SrSonidR plan"
This is the play of Hamlet with the character
of Hamlet omitted. Laughter. "This
charter of compact" proceeds Mr.. Douglas,
with its fundamental conditions, which were
unalterable without the joint consent of the
people interested in them, as well as of the
8 United States, then stood upon the statute
book unrepealed and rrcpealable when, on
the 18th day of MAY, 1881, the Federal Con
vention met at Philadelphia" Does Mr..
| Douglas not know that on the 9th of March,
| 1885, proposition was introduced in Congress
! by Rufus King, to exclude slavery from the
States described in the resolve of April 23d, |
| 1884, and to make this provision part of the
compact established by that resolve? Does
he not know that this provision, restoring the
Jeffersonian feature to the Jeffersonian plan,
was committed, by the vote of eight States
against four? Does he not know that the plan
of 1884 never went into practical operation,
h,,f L. IL h.
| 1887? Does he not know that the ordinance
of 1877 was the first legislative act ever prac-
tically organizing a Territory Of the United
States, and that one of its most prominent
features was the proviso excluding slavery
from all the Territories then in possession of
the United States?
Mr.. Douglass historical recollections of the
ordinance of 1887 seem to be very indistinct.
Indeed, he deems it only worthy Of an occa-
| sional, passing, almost cOntemptuous notice.
| He speaks of it as "the ordinance of the 18th
Of July, 1887, which was passed by the rem
nant of the Congress of the Confederation,
sitting in New York, while its most eminent
members were at Philadelphia, as delegates !
to the Federal Convention" For three quar- |
ters of century, people were in the habit Of |
thinking that the ordinance of 1897 was an act
of the highest order of Importance, but we now
learn that it was a rather Indifferent affair,
passed on an Indifferent occasion, by an ex-
ceedingly indifferent set of fellows, while the |
plan of 1884, mere abstract programme, COM |
pletely overruled by subsequent legislation, is |
represented as the true glory of the age. How
is this? The reason is obvious. Mr.. Douglas |
belongs to that class of historians who dwell |
upon those facts which suit their convenience, |
and unceremoniously drop the rest. | once
heard OF Jesuit college where they used a
text book of history, in which the French Rev
olution was never mentioned, while the Empe |
ror Napoleon figured there only as a modest |
Marquis BOnaparte, who held commission
under Louis XVII, and fought great battles |
for the glory Of the Catholic Church. Laugh |
ter and applause. So it is with Mr.. Douglas |
and the history Of this country. He ignores
the universal principles of the Declaration of
independence and represents the great founders
of the Republic as merely paving the way for
his "great principles" while few village pol |
iticans get up obscure ordinance, adverse
to the general tendency of things Bot as
those Jesuits never could prevent their students |
from peeping out of their college windows into
the wide world, where they perceived very |
different state of things, so Mr.. Douglas cannot
prevent us from travelling out of the yellow
covers Of Harpers' Magazine, into the open
records of history, where we find Mr. Jefler
sons antslavery clause, although accidentally |
lost in 1884, strenuoutly insisted upon by the
leading spirits of the Republic, Incorporated in
the great act of 1884, solemnly reafhrmed by the |
first Congress under the Constitution, and firm
ly maintained even against the petition of the
people of one of the Territories. Cheers.
| This is the true "Jeffersonian plan,' the plan
II e. h,nhl