The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1860-08-23

DOUGLAS AND HIS RECORD.
The Track Of a Demagogue,



Aud leaves the people still In doubt
whether the snake that made the track
Was going South or coming back"
[From the Toledo Bladc
Now that Stephen A. Douglas has
completely boxed the compass on the
question Of Slavery in the Territories,
we propose briefly to trace his tortuous
course and from his own record to show
the utter hoartlossness of all his profess
sions Of principle in that connection.
Of all the demagogues that have gained
a national reputation, We think we shall
show him to be the most inscriptions
and bare.faced We propose to take
four distinct views of him-1st, as a
Congressional Intorvontonist against
Slavery in the Territories; ID as non.
IntervontiOnist or advocate of Squatter
Sovereignty; Sd, as a defender of the
"Irrepressblo Conflict" and fourth as a
Congressional Interventionist for Sla-
very in the Territories
lsT. DOUGLAS AS AN INTERVENTIONIsT
AGAINST SLAVERY.
In 1915 December goth, while a Joint
Resolution was pending, presented by
Mr. Brown, of Tennessee, for the ad-
mission of Texas into the Union, Mr.
Douglas offered the following amend
mcnt
"And in such State or States as may
be formed out Of said TERRITORY north
of said Missouri Compromise line, slave
ry or involuntary seryitudo (ezcopt for
crime) shall be prohibited. ~ s. Stu
tptes at large, 1830-1845. p. 7OS.
lie here not only seeks to employ Con-
gressional Intervention against Slavery
in the Territories, but by his amend
ment would prohibit States from having
Slavery even if their people loished It,
Again, on the 10th Of August, 1913,
the bill for establishing the Territorial
Government of Oregon being before
the Senate, Mr.. Douglas offered an
amendment prohibiting Slavay within
the proposed Territories, which was
adopted, receiving, as he elsewhere tells
us, the votes Of all the Southern Sena-
tors.
In 1913, on the 23d of October, the
Springfield (Ill) journal says, Mr..
Douglas made a speech in that city, in
which he gave uttorancc to the follow
ing:
"Thc Missouri Compromise had ori-
gin akin to that Of the Constitution of
the United States, conceived in the spr-
it of paternal affection, and calculated
to remove forcvcr the danger lohicb Scenl-
ed to threaten, at some distant dag, to seq
cr the social bands Of union. All the
evidences Of public opinion of that day
seemed to indicate that the Compromise
had been can0pizcd IN the hearts of the
american people as a sacred thing, which
no RUTHLESS HAND would ever be
reckless enough to disturb"
Bear in mind, that the "sacred thing
which was thus "canonized in the hearts
of the American people" was Con-
gressional prohibition of Slavery in the
Territories
In 1880 this "sacrcd" measure
of Congressional Intervention against
Slavery, was attacked by John c. Cal.
houn in the United States Senate, when
Mr.. Douglas came promptly to its de.
fence, as follows:
"The next in the series Of aggres5ions
complained of by the Senator Of South
Carolina is the Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Compromise is an act of
Northern injustice, designed to deprive
the South Of her due share Of the ter
ritoriesI Why, sir, it was only the Other
day that the Senator from Mississippi
despairod of any peaceablo adjustment
Of existing difficulties, because the Mis-
souri, Compromise could not be extended
to the Pacific That measure was ori
ginaIIy adopted in the bill for the ad
mission Of Missouri, by a union of
Northern and Southern votes. Tn,
South has always prOlessod to be willing
to abide by, and even to continue it, az
fair and honorable adjustment of ,
vexed and difficult question. In 1874,
it was adopted in the resolution for thu
annexation of Texas, by Southern al
well as Northern votes, without th
slightest complaint that it was unfair t.
any section Of the country. In 1916 i
! leCtlNeu Lhe support Ol every pOuLHeIl
member of the House of Representa-
tives- Whig and Demoorat--without al
exception, as an alternate measure Of tn
/ Wilmot Proviso. And again in 1874
as an amendment to the Oregon Bill, O.
ny motion, it received the vote if re
collect highland 1 do not think l ca
possibly be mistaken--of every South
ern Senator, Whig and Democrat, eve
including the Senator from South Caro-
lima himself (Mr, Calhoun) And %
10e are no,0 told that This Is only second {
the ordinance Of 1887 IN the series Of az
of oppression on the South, ~ Congress
sional Globe, Appendix, vol, %, part z
page 37O
That sounds like good Republican
doctrine--without a particle of "disuu
ion" in it, Mr. Douglas does not leav
the matter thus, however but returns {
the defence of Congressional Interven
tion in the following clear style;