Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-03-31
Carl sehurz on Douglas.

allied citizen. In recent speech the gentle
man reviewed the Popular Sovereignty doc
trins of Douglas with mastery skill and effect.
We give one or two extracts, showing the
spirit in which this work is executed, though
failing, of course, to do justice to it as a
whole;
"But what does Mr. Douglas sayi 'Sla,
very 30 he tells Ne, in his Harper Magazine
article, slavery being the creature Of local leg
islstion, and not Of the Constitution Of the
United States, it follows that the Constitution
does not establish slavery in thelTenitoTies,
beyond the power of the people to control 1t
by law What The Constitution does not
establish slavery in the Territories beyond g
certain something. What does that meant If
slavery is the creature Of local law, how can
the Constitution by Its own force permit slavery
to 60 into q Territory at all
Here is dark mysteTy,a pitfall, and we may
well take care not to fall into the trap Of such
sophistry. Why does he not speak of the ad>
mission Of slavery by positive enactments -
why not even of the power Of the people to
exclude It by lawl We look in vain for light
in Hsrper's Magazine-(and it is indeed true,
what Judge Black intimates, that tho article is
ever q polftisian attempted to belog his follow
ers); but we may gather Mr.. Douglas real
opinion from another manifesto preceding this
In his New Orleans speech, delivered after his
recent success in Illinois, be defined his posi-
ton in substance as follows: The Democra-
cy Of Illinois holds that stakeholder has the
same right 70 take his slave property into
Territory as any other man has to take bis
horse or his merchandise
What! Slavery is the creature of local law,
and yet STAKEHOLDER has the right to take his
slave property into territory before any local
law has given him that right! a slave does
not become free, when voluntarily brought By
his owner upon the soil of territory, where
no positive local law establishing slavery ex~
istsl How is this possible! How can even
the elastic mind of Democratic candidate for
the Presidency unite the contradictory assump-
tions. [Applause1 And yet there it stands,
and nothing that hr Douglas ever said can be
more unequivocal in its meaning And here
again We may claim the privilege of drawing q
few logical deductions from the premises. If,
as Mr.. Douglas distinctly and emphaticalIY
tells US, STAKEHOLDER has a right to take his
slave as property into s territory, and to hold
him there as property, before any legislation on
that point is had, from what source does
that right arisei Not from the law of nature
for the right to hold a slave "is unfounded
in the law of nature, and in an unwritten COM
mon law, p and even Mr., Douglas, little as be
may care about nature and her laws, viii hardly
dare to assert that the system Of slave labor is
the natural and norm al condition of society,"
It must then spring from positive Law. But from
what kind Of positive lsgi Not from any DOS
tive law Of local and municipal character, for
there is none such In the territory so fai. Where
| is its source thenl There is but one kind of
positive law to which the territories are subject,
before any local legislation has been had, and
that Is the Constitution of the URitsd StGtES.--
If, therefore, Mr. Douglas asserts, as be dOes,
that stakeholder has right to take his slave
as property into territory, he must at the same
time admit that, IN the absence of local legis
lation positively establishing slavery, the Con-
stitution of the United States, the only valid
| law existing there must be the source of that
right What else does Mr. Buchanan assert,
but that slavery exists in the territories by viz
tue of the Federal Constitution. Where is,
then, the difference betl5ees Mr. Buchanan and
| Mr.. Douglas? Why all this pOmp and ciroum-
stance of glorious wsIl Whence these fierce
battles between the Monteehi and Capuetti of
the Democratic campl Are ye not brothers!
But Mr.. Douglas is a statesman, ESQ they are
al, all statesmen and pretends that the Consti-
tuition does not establish slavery in the terrific
ries BeyOd he pOtceT Of the people to control Il
by lasV7 What does that mean! It means
that the people Of territory shall have the
power, not to exclude slavery by law, for Doug
las nsver uses that expression, but to embarrass
the STAKEHOLDER in the enjoyment of his right,
| by tunfriendly legislation" The right to hold
slaves, says he, in another place, "is worth
less right, unless protected by appropriate
police regulations. If the people of territory
do not want slavery, they have but to withhold
all protection and all friendly legislation" In
deed, most ingenious szpedisnt!
And Mr. Douglas, after having emphaticalIy
admitted the right Of property in slave, where
that right can spring from no other law but the
| Constitution, then dares TO speak Of unfrisndly
| legislation! Where is his consistencei Where
is his oath! Where is his honori (Applause }
But Mr.. Douglas says more: THE Constitu.
ton being the supreme law Of the land, IN the
States as well as in the Territories then slave.
" exists in Pennsylvania Just as well as in Kan
sas and in South Carolina, and the irrepressible
conflict is there!" Aye,the irreepressible conflict
is there, not only between the two antagonistic
systems Of labor, but between Mr. Douglas
own theories; not only in the States and Terri.
tUries, but in Mr.. Douglas own head. Laugh.
ter and cheers
Whatever ambiguous expressions Mr.. Doug.
las NAV invent, the dilemma starss him in the
| face (aad here put myself on bis own ground): }:
either slavery is excluded from the Territories
so long a. il is not admitted by a special act Of
Territorial legislation,-Or if sslavsholdsr has
.he right to introduce his slave property there
before such legislation is had, he can poases1
that right by virtue OF no other but the only Law
existing there, the Constitution Of the q. s -
Either slavery has no rights in the Territories,
except those springing from positive law OF a
local or municipal character, or, according to
Judge Douglas own admission, the Southern
construction Of the Constitution and of the
principle of popular sovereignty is the only
legitimate one; that the Constitution BY its
own force, carries slavery wherever it is the
supreme law Of the an5;vthat- Congress is
obligedt to enact 3 slave code for It's protection.
and that popular sovereignty means the power
of the people 70 vote for slavery, but by no
means against it. There Is no escape from this
dilemma.
which side win Mr. Douglas take Will he
be bold enough to say that slavery, being the
creature Of local law only, Is excluded from
the territories in the absence Of positive law
establishing it; or viii he be honest enough Il
concede that, according to his own proposition
in his New Orleans speech, slavery exists In
the territories by virtue of the Federal Oonstitu'
tion3 BE win neither be bold enough 10 dc
: the first, nor honest enough TO do the second
he will be eoWHTdly enough to do either
He il in the position Of that Democrats eandi'
date for Congress nthe Wesl,who when ssked
"Are your Buchanan or a Douglas man y
answered = am" (Grest laughter snd cheers,
IF vou ash Mr. Douplas an. 90, bol5 tha,
slavery is the creature Of law, or that a slave,
holder has the night to introduce bis slave
property where theFs il no local Law ~ he vii
! - ~ a. D Ll.-.l.---a I...-a. -