The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-03-07
speech OF senator Douglas.


be-a bid of Seward not only for the Chica-
go nomination, but for the floating conserv.
alive vote of the North. His speech occu.
pies five closely printed columns Of the New
York Herald.
Mr.. Douglas at once demolished its in.
tended effect as a political antidote for the
Rochester speech, by the following brief and
most unanswerable reply:
Mr.. Douglas said the remarks OF the Sen.
ator from New York contained an assault
upon the Democratic party, especially in re-
he (Mr. Douglas) was the author. 1t be-
comes fashionable, said he, now for each
gentleman who makes speech against the
Democratic party, to refer to Kansas as the
cause Of all the disturbances which have
since ensued. The Senator from New York
talks about that act re.opening the Contro.
versy, and about the repeal of the Missouri
compromise. Sir, wherein consisted the ne
cessity for the repeal Of that act, except it
was that the majority in the Northern States
refuse to carry it out in good faith |, sir,
sto cd willing to extend it TO the Pacific
Ocean, to abide by it forever, and the entire
South, without one exception in this body,
was willing to abide by it,. Sir, the free
soil element of the Northern States was so
strong as to defeat that measure, and thus
opened the slavery question anew. Those
men who now complain OF the abrogation of
that act were the very men who denounced
it. All were willing to abide by it SO long
as it stood upon the statute booke, and we
were trying to carry it out. Sir, it was the
defeat OF the bill to extend the Missouri com.
promise to the Pacific in the House of Rep
resentatives, after it passed the Senate, that
opened the controversy of 1850, which was
terminated in the establishment of the meas.
ure Of that year. The compromise measures
of that year were carried ever the heads Of
the Senator from New York and his assoc
ates !; but in 1862 the Senator's party agreed
to abide by the measures of 1850. 10 1854
the Kansas Nebraska act was passed to car.
ry out the principles of these measures. He
was not willing to sit still and hear himself
charged with responsibility for the agitation
which belonged to the Senator and his asso.
ciates. The present agitation resulted from
the resistance of that party to the measures
approved by the people in two Presidential
elections. But the Senator from New York
went further, and his doctrine was that the
Declaration Of Independence asserted the
equality of the negro race, and therefore all
laws in violation of that idea were not 10 be
observed. For himself, he thought four
years ago the Senator declared that the De.
claration of Independence intended to reCog.
nize the negro and white man as equals un-
der the Divine Law, and hence that all pro.
visions of the Constitution of the United
States which recognized slavery were in vio-
lation of the Divine Law. In other words,
it was an argument against the Constitution
of the United States on the ground that it
was contrary to the Law OF God. The SEN
ator from New York has long held that doc
trine, and proclaimed it in speech which
he made in Ohio, in l849, that the constitu-
ton of the United States was in violation OF
Divine Law, and, therefore, not to be obey.
ed. 1t has been the doctrine of the Senator
for four years, and he had not heard it in the
Senate to-day for the first time. He had met
it in his own State for the last ten years.
The Senator from New York says, in this
very speech, New York is yet a slave State,
not that she has a slave within her limits
but because the constitution of New York
did not allow negro TO vote on equality
with white men. For that reason New York, i
he said, was still slave State, and for that
reason every other State that Disseminated
between the negro and the white man was
slave State. Notwithstanding that the Sen.
ator, with the leading men of his party, was
committed 10 these doctrines, he argued th9t
their tendency was in favor of the equality
of the white man. He desired to see the
gentleman carry out their principles to their
logical conclusion. II they persisted in the
declaration that the negro is made the equal
OF the white man, then let them carry out
their doctrine by conferring upon them a II
the rights of citizenship exercised by white
men. For himself, he thought the Declara.
tion Of Independence only re erred to the
white race. Ii the Senator had correctly
interpreted that instrument, the siqners
should have Immediately emancipated their
slaves but they did not do SO. He thought
this government was made by white men and
for the benefit of white men.
Mr. Doclittle, (rep.) of Wis, asked why
not, then, give the Territories to white men!
Mr.. Douglas replied that would throw
them open to white men and negroes too
but he wanted white men to organize them.
If they wanted slavery let them have it. 1t
was their business and not his. 1t was
question Of political economy and self inter
est. The Senator from New York coined
new definition of"labor States" and "capita
States 1t took him good many years to
coin those terms and bring them into use.-
Something had occurred up in New England
to induce him to bring out these terms and
take sides with numerous class of voters.
Strikes had occurred at the North among
starving workmen, because the doctrine OF
tho "irrepressible conflict" had driven off
Southern business. The Senator had sought
to place himself on the side of the shoemak.
ers. The workingmen knew this very we'll,
and they also knew why so many Southern
orders were not received as formerly.
Mr.. Clark, (rep) of N. H., said he came
from a manufacturing town of 1900 opera.
tives, but business was never better there
than now, and the workmen were never bet
ter contented.
Mr.. Douglas replied that there was no
other cause for the strike at Lynn and other
places, than the withdrawal of the Southern
trade. The strike resulted from the general
prevalence OF the same feeling which induc.
ed the Senator from Virginia to appear in
homespun. He, Mr.. Douglas, was satisfied
with the application of "popuIar sovereign
ty," both in New Mexico and Kansas. One
instituted slavery and the other excluded it.
He was satisfied with both. He would not
vote for the repeal of the slave code ia New
Mexico, or force slavery on Kansas. Why
did not the Republican party start to carry
out their principles Why do they not
bring in bills to abolish those "twin relics of