Wabash express. [volume] (Terre-Haute, Vigo Co[unty], Ind.) 1841-186?, 1860-04-18


doctrine exacily:"-Great aPplause.l ] am
stating my position briefly aud plainly
that none may niisun6erstand me. be.
lieye that Slavery IN tie creature Of local
law, TO be reg ulated exclGalyely by local
ouactments. Such was the belief aud sue h
was the policy of the Fathers Of the kepub
lie for more than seventy years, as ! shall
now proceed very briefly to show you.
The speaker then proceeded TO trace the
Legislation 10 reference 10 The exclusion Of
Slavery from the Territories, in language
more brief, but siiailar TO that reported in
the Gazette as used by him Feb. 25th last
specifying the action Of tho three depart
ments OF our Government, from Washing
ton down. in relation 10 Ohio. Indiana, IL
linois, Michigan, Wisconsin, dc. he also
adver,ed to the peaceful settlement of these
Territories. in comparison with the bloody
scenes enacted upOh the plains Of Kan
sas.
soUATTER soyKREIsSrY AND uSTHIKsDLY
LEGISLATION
But YOU are told il WAS necessary 10 do
away the presidents Of the past; To open
govern themselves in their own way, sub
ject only TO the Constitution Of The United
States: that popular sovereignty wss 10
| be born coeval with the Kansas. N ebraska
bill.
Gentlemen what is popular sovereignty?
what are its elementsy | speak in the pres.
/ ence Of lawyers. There are but two things
necessary 10 constitute popular sovereign
! ty: lst-The right To choose "A form Of Gov
eminent; aud 2d--The right tn choose the
agents by whom that form OF Government
/ shall be put in operation. show you first
I that under the Kansas Nebraska bill the /
people have no right TO choose their form |
of Government. for that vas fixed for them /
/ by the Congress ef the United States; and I
secondly that they have no right to choose
the officers Of that Government because the 1
| President of the United States selected their
officers, and the United States paid them
Then l say that popular sovereignty was
an arrantcheat and lie from the beginning
Immense applause You were told in
you have the right in Indiana TO govern
yourselves. and do you lose any OF your
intelligence or patriotism by immigrating
to The Territories2 Why should you not
possess the same right there as herr" I he
argument was plausible. They went on
"Why, sirs, the Kansas N ebraska bill gives
you the power to fix your institutions in
your own way, sublect only to the Constr
tuition of the United States Gentlemen,
recently the Territorial Legislature of Ne
braska passed a bill excluding Slavery
fixing their own institutions in their own
way, and Governor Black, the appointee Of
the President, vetoed that till, and his
brother Governor, Medary. vetoed exactly
such bill in Kansas. What has become
of the Popular Sovereignty Of 1862
But they We're to form their institutions
Subject only 10 the Constitution Of the
United States" What was that Constitu-
tion as interpreted by the bred Scott de
cision I Why. that the people of Terri
tory had no right to legislate upon it-that
Slavery was fixed. and irrevocably fixed
on the Territories by the force of the Con
stitntion itself. That is what the Supreme
Court tells you Popular Sovereignty means.
What does Mr.. Buchanan tell you it means2
He said three years ago that Kansas was
"this day as much Slave State as Georgia
aud South Carolina" and he said in his
recent Message--you will recollect it-tbat
neither the Territorial Legislature nor
the Congress of the United States, nor the
Supreme Court, nor any human power had
a right to exclude Slavery from a Territory
during its Territorial existence"
Ii that be true, there is an end of the
argument at once and for ever.
The Supreme Court, however, have not
decided any such thing IN tbs bred Scott
decision; they have simply decided that
negro Of African blood is not a citizen un-
der the Constitution of the United States.
aud therefore that he has no right TO bring
a suit. True, they have gone outside of
the record aud have given their political
opinions; but they are no more binding
upon us than if they had been delivered up
on some street corner instead Of in court
room.
This Democratic party tells us that it
was necessary TO repeal the Missouri OOm
promise, first, because it was uncOnstitu.
tional. That may all be, but is it not
strange that its uncoustitutio1aIity was
not found out for seventy yearsT Is it not
strange that every Congress, President and
Supreme Court was engaged deliberately
In violating the Constitution OF the cOun-
try that they were sworn 10 supports Is
it not to be wondered at that they went on
violating the Constitution from Washing
ton until these later days, when it was pre-
served for Stephen A. Douglas and the
race of little giants to discover their error.
Having remarked on the circumstances
attending the passage of the Missouri
Compromise, and its submission by Mr..
Monroe 10 his Cabinet, aud having spoken
of the giant intellects who composed that
Cabinet, he proceeded:
Such men,decided it TO be constitutional.
You believes to be unconstitutional now
Why Because the God aecursed ambi
ton of Stephen A. Douglas prompted him,
in an evil hour for our country, 10 trample !
upon the Constitution Of our country.
He then reviewed that other reason as
signed, that the Missouri Compromise con
ficted with the compromises of 1850. |
showing its fallacy by reading from one OF
those Compromise bills. (the Texas Boun-
Diary bill. } the re enactment Of the Missouri |
Compromise itself.
But they tell US, in passing the measures
of 1850, the Congress Of the United States /
departed from the old system of restrict
ing Slavery; in other words, they refused |
to pass the Wilmot proyiso, as applied to
Utah and New Mexico.
GentleHen, you know how those Com
promise measures originated. They orr
ginated in four resolutions introduced by |
Henry Clay. He introduced four resolu- |
tons, and the second was thus:
"R,soiped. That as slavery does not ex- |
list by law, and is not likely to be intro
duced into any Of the territory acquired by !
the United States from the Republic Of
Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to /
provide by law either for its introduction |
into or exclusion from any part of the said
territory"
Docs no. that leave the negative pregnant,
that il slavery had existed, or if there was
danger OF its existence in that territory, he,
according to his resolution, would have
applied Che Wilmot Proviso? But gentle
men say it was not applied. Why was it
not? Because. as Clay said, it was an alb
straction; and as Webster said, the laws of
natare had excluded it.
But do not rest there, for the authority
of Mr.. Clay's great name has been brought
in to sanction the repeal Of the Missouri
Compro mise. must refer yon to another
expression of that distinguished man.
made in one of the last speeches made by
him in the Senate OF the United States, an