The Nevada journal., 1860-05-25
Territorial Iset.l.tion-

tlons that can be taken upon the subject n
Territorial Legislation and proceeds tc
give them
The doctrine of Douglas, which was sustained
py the Democratic party in 1856, is that tn,
people OF the Territories should be left free tc
settle the question of slavery to suit themse,ye,
either to establish or exclude it, according &c
their own interests or inclinations. Against thi,
doctrine we find arrayed two section parties
one claiming that slavery rs a relic of barbarism
and should be excluded by Congress from the
Territories; the other that slavery is national
institution, and whenever the Territorial Legis
latures refuse or fail to pass laws protecting
property in slaves, that such protection should
be afforded by Congressional enaetments. These
positions are well defined radically differ from
each other, and are the leading political issues
of the day. Every intelligent man who has an
opinion of his own must have made up his mind
which of these doctrines to support The editor
of the Journal has. over and over again. de-
nounced the popular sovereignty doctrine OF
Douglas, and must of necessity be in favor, either
of prohibiting or protecting slavery in the Ter
ritories, by acts Of Congress, but are entirely
in the dark as to which of these doctrines be
favors."
In the first place we deny, and shall prove
that we are not forced to take one of three
positions. There is another position or two
that can be taken. In stating the Douglas
doctrine the Democrat uses those general
terms calculated to catch the ear of the ig-
norant and mislead. 1t does not state ,rhen
the people are to settle the question of sla-
very for Observation-Disclosures on forming a
State Constitution or before in their social
capacity. On this point the locofocos are
divided. If the people can only act def
nitively on the slavery question when they
come to form State Constitution, the blow
about popular sovereignty and Douglas
doctrine" is humbug, for the people of Il
Territory had the acknowledged right before
Douglas or his "doctrine" was thought Of
You may point to the Missouri Compromise
as interdicting this right north of SO de-
grees 80 minutes north latitude. 1t is of no
avail, for your own great leader has often
said nature had set an insuperable barrier
against slavery north of that line What
has been gained then, by the repeal of that
line but a barren, utterly barren, principle?
South of the line popular sovereignty pre-
vailed by the sufferance of the American
government. North of the line by virtue
of climate. Have you anything better, or
has Douglas assisted nature2
On the other hand, taking up the view of
the other division of the party, that the
people in their social or Territorial condi-
tion can exclude slavery, we ask, as we
have asked before without an answer, what
becomes of the right, which Douglas ac-
knowledges, of a STAKEHOLDER to take his
property into any Territory acquired by the
common blood and treasure of all the States?
In other words, will somebody, since the
Democrat will not, unfold to us the beauties
of owning an interest in Territory acquired
by blood, but never allowed our rights p
Pointedly, who can see so much to admire
in the man Douglas and his doctrines, who
whispers in the ears of the southern slave
holder, take your slaves to Kansas, old
fellow it is right purchased with your
money and blood )" and then bending over
to the people of the Territory, whispers
his eyes all the time on the migrating slave
holder and thumb on the nasal protuber-
ance--" if he comes you have the right to
kick his d-n niggers out" Intelligent
Americans! this is popular sovereignty
We have never seen the last phase of it log
ically defended, simply because it can't be
done
The Democrat wants to know our position
parties-doctrines which it pretends to set
forth above. If we have not during the
past FIVE years clearly made known our
views, we can hardly hope to do so now to
the comprehension of our neighbor. But
we can make our views plain to every intel
ligent man who has mind of his own
We do not endorse any of the doctrines
as set forth by the Democrat, and we shall
show, Notwithstanding the dogmatism of our
neighbor, that there is another tenable po-
sition; and if it be not tenable we challenge
the press to show it up. The Douglas view
of popular sovereignty we have exposed al
ready. Of the Republican platform of 1856,
we do not endorse a plank which if our
memory be correct reads as follows:
Resolved, That we deny the authority of Con-
gress, of territorial legislature, or any indivd-
ual, or association of individuals, to give legal
existence to slavery in any Territory of the Uni
ted States, while the present Constitution shall
be maintained.
We do not think the same will find a place
in the Republican platform of 1860. 1t is
contradictory of another plank in the same
platform, which asserts the power of Cong
ress in the government of Territories to be
sovereign, and that it is the right and duty
of Congress to prohibit those twin relics oI
arbarism-polygamy and slavery. The
power to prohibit implies the power to es-
tablish where no Constitutional provision
interferes
Our position is briefly this: While We
deny the moral right of Congress or any
other body of men to establish slavery, ol
any other institution repugnant to exac
justice, we recognize the old doctrine Sc
forth by Senator Latham and quoted from
Douglas that Congress has full control ovel