The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1860-09-06
DEMOCRATIC MEETING.
eech OfJonatham e. ArmeI'

liar Sovereignty and state kiEh's
ExpOunded.
r. Arnold the Democratic candidate
Congress from this Congressional
let, made speech at the Court
Sc in this city on Saturday evening
The Court House was quite well
full one third the number present
Q Republicans, who went from Gu
ty to hear what a modern Democrat
to say. Mr.. Arnold having been
,duced by our good-natured fellow
lsman-Fred. Robinson, announced
subject of his speech to be Popular
,reignty and State Rights. To
fly the curiosity of such as were not
ent, we will present brief outline
Ar. Arnold's remarks, being care
o give him the benefit Of his
ng points, if it can be said that he
any; in the meantime making such
mentaries on the statements OF Mr..
old as they justly merit.
Ir. Arnold commenced by saying,
did not establish slavery, nor did
forefathers it was entailed upon us
the mother country; England was
re responsible than we for its exist
e among us. Mr.. Arnold might
thfully have added that while the
tied States have greatly enlarged
area OF slavery since our separation
m Great Britain, England has wiped
the stain of slavery from her soil.
Mr.. Arnold freely confessed having
IN a wing of straightest sort up to
80; he recognized the wing platform
1852 as containing the true embody>
mt Of correct political principles ;
vs. he was member Of the Wing
ational Convention, and that he voted
1qI-taoo times for Daniel Webster in
at body. He paid an eloquent trib-
G the old Wing party; eulogized It's
eat leaders and its glorious deeds he
ooke of the treatment of Webster and
LAY as meriting the"deep damnation OF
Eod and the People" Mr.. Arnold
,oke of the Kansas Nebraska act as
ninently Democratic measure; Pop
lar Sovereignty was first established
nd embodied into law in 1854; Blu
hanan subsequently accepted Popular
overeignty as expressed by the Cinci'
att platform. Mr.. Arnold referred to
nc resolutions Of the Democracy OF
ouisiana and other States, to show that
'opular Sovereignty was accepted by
ne party. Here, it seems to us, MIR.
Arnold's speech was greatly at fault
lie should have stated as historical
act, that the Democratic party in all
he Northern States did avow the doc
rine of the Wilmot Proyiso in l848 and
$40, either in State conventions or by
esolutions expressed through the Dem,
cratic Legislatures. This is just as
auch a fact, as that there is, or ever
as been, Democratic party in this
country.
The most important portion of Mr..
Arnold's speech, was his attempted ex-
POSITION of Popular Sovereignty, or the
,ower of the Territories over slavery
Whether the Democracy of Kenosha
will accept Mr.. Arnold's eAposi-
ion, remains to be seen. Mr.. Arnold
maintains that the power of the Terrific
les, to prohibit or abolish slavery is an
pen question the Democratic party
las not committed itselfto an opinion on
hat point; the Baltimore platform does
lot attempt to decide it. The resolu
ion of the Baltimore convention, refer
inc to that question, intends only to
commit the Democratic party to the
determinations of the Supreme Court,
rs they may hereafter be, as to the
measure ofpower the people of the Ter
.itories have over the subj ect OF slavery.
Now does not this admission of Mr.
Arnold, show Popular Sovereignty to
De a most miserable sham? What is
he sense of all this noise by the Doug
asites, about leaving to the people Of
he Territories, the privilege ofregulating
heir own affairs including slavery, if it
las not yet been determined whether
he people have any such privilege ? Of
what worth are all these boosted rights,
which Popular Sovereignty proposes to
confer on the people, if it be yet unde.
whether there are any such
lights? What will the Squatterites say
o this doctrine Of Mr.. Arnold?
Mr.. Arnold maintained that the States
nave complete Sovereignty-that every
State may determine what shall be
therefore Wisconsin or any
other Sovereign State may establish
slavery. We beg leave to differ with
Mr.. Arnold in this matter Of State pow
r.: there are limitations to power both
n the Federal Government, and in the
government of the States there are
natural and inalienable rights, which
cannot trench upon. If
he State can determine that every per-
on of dark complexion may be chat
elized, then it may decree that every
ed haired man, or person of any other
peculiar mark, may be made slave
Natural right does not inhere alone to
hose of any particular nationality
Moreover, Wisconsin has nopower even