Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-03-16
speech Of Hon. s. A. Douglas,

Speech of Hon. s. A. Douglas,
In reply to Nessrs iSsoard and Tratn,buu
/ Delivered in the Senate of the United
States, February 20. 1860
| Mr.. PRESIDENT: trust shall be par
doned for a few remarks upon so much Of
the Senator's speech as consists in an assault,
on the Democratic party, and especially with
regard to the Kansas Nebraska bill, Of which
l " as the responsible author. It has become
fashionable nowadays for each gentleman
making speech against the Democratic par
ty to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska act as
the cause of all the disturbances that have
since ensued. They talk about the repeal
of sacred compact that had been undisturb-
ed for more than quarter Of a century, as
if those who complained of violated faith had
been faithful to the provisions Of the Mis-
souri, compromise. Sir. wherein consisted
the necessity for the repeal or abrogation Of
that act, except it was that the majority i'll
the northern States refused to carry out the
Missouri compromise in good faith? stood
willing to extend it to the Pacific ocean, and
abide by it forever, and the entire South,
without one exception in this body, was will
I ling thus to abide by it.; but the free-soil
element of the northern States was SO strong
as to defeat that measure, and thus open the
slavery question anew. The men who now
complain of the abrogation Of that act were
the very men who denounced it, and de-
nounced all Of us who were willing to abide
by it soslong as it stoed upon the statute
book. Sir, it was the defeat in the House
Of Representatives Of the enactment of the
bill to extend the Missouri compromise to
the Pacific ocean, after it had passed the
Senate on my own motion. that opened the
controversy in 1850, which was terminated
by the adoption of the measures of that year.
We carried those compromise measures
over the head of the Senator from New York
and his present associates. We, in those
measures, established great principle, re-
buking his doctrine Of Intervention by the
Congress of the United States to prohibit
slavery in the Territories. Both parties, in
1852, pledged themselves to abide by that
principle, and thus stood pledged not to pro-
hibit slavery in the Territories by act Of Con
gress The Wing party affirmed that pledge
and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we
only carried out, in the Kansas Nebraska
act, the same principle that had been affirm
ed in the compromise measures of 1850.
repeat that their resistance to carrying ou1
in good faith the settlement Of 1920, their
defeat of1he bill for extending it to the Pa.
ci6c ocean, was the sole cause Of the agita-
ton of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity
of establishing the principle of non-interven.
ton by Congress with slavery in the Terri.
tories.
Hence I am not willing to sit here and
allow the Senator from New York, with al
the weight Of authority he has with the pow
.erful party Of which he is the head, to ar
raign me and the party to which ! belong
with tho responsibility for that agitation
which rests solely upon him and his associ
ates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing
to carry out the compromise in good faith
Having been defeated in that for the want
Of numbers, aud having established the. prin
ciple Of on-intervention in the compromise
measures Of 1850, In lieu Of it, the Demo
cratic party from that day TO this has beer
faithful to the new principle of adjustment
Whatever agitation has grown out of tht
question since, has been occasioned by til.
resistance Of the party Of which that Senator
is the head, to this great principle which ha.
been ratified by the American people at tive
| presidential elections. If he was willing t.
acquiesce in the solemn and repeated judg.
ment of that American people to which he
| appeals, there would be no agitation in thi.
country now.
| But, sir. the whole argument that Sen
ntor goes far beyond the question of slavery
even in the Territories. Ills entire argu
ment rests on the assumption that the negro
aud the white man were equal by Divine
| law, and honce that all laws and constitutions
and governments in violation Of the priuci
| pie of negro equality are in violation Of tht
law of God That is the basis upon which
his speech rests He quotes the Declaration
Of Independence to show that the fathers 0
the Revolution understood that the negr'
was placed on an equality with the white MAI
by quoting the clause, I'VE hold these truth
to be self-evident, that all men are createt
equal, and are endowed by their Creator will
certain inalienable rights, among which ar
life, liberty, and the pursuits Of happiness.
Sir, the doctrine of that Senator and of hi
party is-and | have had to meet it for eigh
years-that the Declaration Of independence
intended to recognize the negro and the whit
man as equal under the Divine law, and hence
that all the provisions Of the Constitution o
the United States which recognizes slavery
are in violation of the Divine law. In othe
words, it is an argument against the Consti
tuition of the United States upon the grount
thatit is Scntrary tc the law Of Col. The Sen
.atcr from New York has long held that doc
trine. The Senator from New York hal
often proclaimed to the world that the Con
stitution of the United States was in viola
ton of the Divine law, and that Senator viii
not contradict the statement. have an ex
tract from one of his speeches now before me
in which that proposition is distinctly pu
forth 10 speech made III the State o
Ohio, in 1848, he said:
''Slavery is the sin of not some of thu
States only, but of them all of not one ma
tionality, but Of all nations It perverted
and corrupted the moral sense Of mankinc
deeply and universally, and this perversior
became universa habit Habits Of though
become fixed principles. No American STATE
has yet delivered itself entirely from these
habits. We, in New York, are guilty o