Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1860-11-21

have thirty-ttree State Constitutions
salutary extension of the idea of Jefferson,
to allow the people of any territory, with
in limits suited to a State government, to
frame a constitution for themselves, instead
Of requiring them to adopt one framed for
some State already in the Union.
The plan of Jefferson was true POpu
lar Sovereignty plan. Compare it with the
Kansas Nebraska bill. The plan of Jeffer-
son allowed the people to adopt their own
temporary Constitution. The Kansas Ne
braska bill imposes on the people, without
their consent. a temporary Constitution,
framed by Mr. Douglas and enacted into
law by Congress The plan of Jefferson
enabled the people to elect their own Gov
ernOr. Judges and other officers. Tho Kan
sas Nebraska bill allows the people no
voice in the selection of their officials, but
provides for their appointment by the Presf
ident of the United States. The plan OF
jefferson empowered the people to prOtec-
themselves against slavery, as well as every
other evil. Mr.. Douglas and his friends
refused to incorporate into the Kansas Ne
braska bill simple declaration, that the
people Of the Territory had power under
the Constitution to prohibit the existence
Of slavery.
The relation between the two plans is
not that of similarity. but contrast-not
that of example and imitation, but that of
contradiction and utter repugnance.
Now, | say here what have said else
where, that under the doctrine of NOn-in-
tervention and Popular Sovereignty, truly
understood and properly applied, the ques-
tion of slavery might be safely left to the
people of the Territories; and if the simple
AM etfectual remedy of prohibition is not
to be had, |, for one, would be willing to
accept this plan of settlement. But it is
too plain for denial that the plan of Mr..
Douglas, as exhibited in the Kansas Ne
braska bill, is no plan of Popular Sover-
eighty, but a scheme which combines, in
the worst form, Congressional Sovereignty,
Presidential Sovereignty and Judicial Soy
ereignty In word, it is complete Illus
tration of the saying of Talleyrand whe,
when asked the meaning of Non-interven-
ton, replied, after musing moment: Non
interventiOn-Non n-interveution--ah it is
pretty much the same thing as Interven-
tion.
And certainly Mr.. Douglas plan has
not proved beneficial one for the country.
Far from composing the controversy con-
cerning slavery, it has isfamed and embit-
tered it. 1t has introduced diseord and
strife into the territories and it has excited
distrust and alienation beyond all former
Prec edent, between the different sections of
the country.
l regard then the settlement proposed
by Mr.. Douglas as a failure l think you
will agree that L do not so regard it with
out reason. ..
Let me now submit to your cOnsidera-
ton the Republican plan. 1t consists sim
ply in denatioHalizing slavery. No Repu6-
lican proposes any interference with slav-
cry in any State Our theory wisely leaves
to each State complete control over ali its
domestic concerns. You in Kentucky have
neither tie right nor the disposition to In
terfere with our affairs in Ohio. We in
Ohio have neither the right nor the dispO-
sition to interfere with your affairs in Ken
tucky.
.Slarezy IN Stare States is IN no danger
from unconstitutional interference ty Re
pubiicans, aud permit me to say that can
not but think that if gentlemen Of Slave
States would study our principles on this
point little more carefully and represent
them little more corrsctly, good deal Of
might be prevented. In
the misapprehension there may be some
danger.
But while the Republicans do nat pro-
pose aIiy Interference 10ith slarery IN STATES
.hey do propose to ercinde Il tr mthe Ter
rit0yies. There can be no peace without
such exclusion. and why should citizens of
slave States complain of it ? Laboring free
men will find there, happier and more pros
porous homes than where slavery prevails.
apitalists-whCther slave States or free,
can invest their meaIs there with fairer
of returns, than if slavery were
allowed Nobody is harmed, but all are
benefited by the exclusion. And not only
S this policy beneficial in itself, bus VIC
nave for it the sanction of the wisest and
best men of the Republic.
The Compromise measures of 1850 are
,ome times ALLEGED as Precedents for the
Kansas Nebraska t of lS54. But the .
after finds no sanction whatever in the for .
ner. Mr.. Clay, Mr. Benton, and MIR. /
Webster. were all in favor of exclusion
lot indeed in favor of Congressional prohl-
,itioa. for they thought that unnecessary
mt in favor of the exclusion which they all
creed was already accomplished, as to the
arritory acquired from Mexico, by geo.
,ranh cal conditions and the Mexican laws;
nd as to the territory acquired from France,
" the Missouri prohibition north of 35:30.
Iho has forgotten the declaration of Dir.
Webster. that wherever his vote should be
eeded to stay the evil of slavery from any
bet of American soil, that vote should not
c wanting? And who can forget the en-
hattie exclamation of Clay, that no vote Of 1
i, should ever be given for the ''propaga- .
ion of wrongs?"
Shall we be censured, then. it, seeing
hat the barriers against slavery extension.
eIied on BY these illustrious m n, have all
cen broken down, We seek TO establish !
ew barriers as we'll as to repair the old? !
/ say to you frankly, that Republicans
lsaa to exclule slavery from the terrific
les. As to the mode of exclusion, they
re comparatively Indifferent. Ihey are
-illing to accept any mode which will GER I
linly be effective. They believe that the
constitution, Justly interpreted, would Of
self accomplish tine object. Give then
ach an Interpretation, and an honest ad-
linistration of the Federal Government,
nd they will be content. They regard
nipple prohibition as another mode, and
hey will accept that. And nest of item