Year: 1860

same as any other uLfng is PROPERTY. Wllia
: then? Why that under This Constitution til
r TefFitofial legislatures; may no more pass
law prohibiting the slave master from comn
lfufo the telfitory and holding lis slaves sstler


as property for his own bel,etit, than they ma


pass a Law prohibiting yDl from taking you


horses and pl0grs there and using them for tn


cultivation of your farm, and holding them a


youf own propertYg id ft - T.


Now ugsdet sneh doctrine where, in all th
law making powers of our nation; Territorial


State, CT National, is there authority to checl


the onward march Of this abomi..ate curse o


our nation, .Sauerg Do you ask havt
they ever surrendered their position ais to tht


real, actual jjdpdtF iseveFefght5 as undeFstoo,


by the honest masses answer. whGt the


genuine, Intentional position was l cannot tell


but rs TO their apparent and practical position


they are forced, iaressst ibl yeompelled to surren
j,der it. and that too according Ia the very


statement of their position and doctrine il
practical form. / ask you how ca,. they ac


cording TO their o9cn stateueaf of their position


any longer clg;4p any Thing in the shape o;
popular sovereignty for the territories? Thai


matter is fxed-fixcd bs the very power they


authorised to fix it-fxed to fit precisely the
provision left in their bill according to which
it might be fixed. The Court rules the great


est question III the nation for the people OF


the territories. and gives them no voice in Tie


settlement of if for themselves. %


DO you retnrt by saying this is nu worse


than the old Compromise which Douglns broke


down reply tlia1, II Kereto admit this
| to be trae, it would prove nothing for The adj


vocates of the SO called Popular Sovereignty
but will not admit that it is no worse, be-


cause that was to some little extent on the side
Of justice, whereas this whole proceeding is on


the side Of injustice and oppression.


But answer still further with reference to


the surrender of popular Sovereignty * OF
only arc those leaders driven to this surrender
! by the force of circumstances 80 soon 10 follow


the introduction OF this doctrine, and which
| they so ingcniously provided for they have in
formal manner, without one word ef COM
plaint, just as though it were in perfect accor-
dance with their original design, dec arcd that
| there is perfect harmony between the p:c-sa-
very construction of the Constitution and their
position on the question of popular sovereign
ty. The nominating Convention has clearly
decided this matter. 1t is declared to be in
accordance with the Cincinnati, Platform that
whatever restrictions have been placed on the
Territorial legislatures. or may hereafter be
placed on them by the Supreme Court, it is
the duty of the people to cheerfully acquiesce


in, and the duty Of the Federal Government
to rigidly enforce. Now what are some of the
restrictions which have already been placed on
these legislatures One most prominent one


is that they dare not legisate slasery ont of the
Territory, though nine tenths Of the people
might desire and petition its prevention or alb
oIition. Where now, ask again, is Popular
Sovereignty according to this creed


The original champion of this kind Of pop
uIar sovereignty now stands himself upon this
very platform and this Interpretation of it, and
asks you for your votes for him this Fall, be-
cause the last year or two You have advocated
with him the doctrine Of popular sovereignty.
Now | believe you honest in your convictions
on this subject, and I would say to you in ali
candor and kindness and with due respect for
your good opinions Judge Douglas that you
have been grossly misle,l in this matter, and
by supporting men standing on this platform,
you arc. imposed upon if you honestly expect
to attain your object in the Territories, and
will be most shaWefully cheated if yodf candi-
dates are even successful.


My opinion is, and in this cannot be de
ceived, think, the only distinctive feature
separating the two wings of the Democracy is
perfectly onnihtlafed, and would just as soon
support one of its pro-savery candidates as
the otter,-do not be offended because l say
f" pro-slavery,' because think imply nothing
more than the truth for if Judge Douglas
had meUer declared that he cared not rrhet6er
Harery 1cas roted up or roted doun, his recent
action in this case shows clearly enough his III
difference to the slave.


deem these reasons enough why I would |
not support these parties, or this party rather.
and why think you should not provided there
is ary other better, with any prospect of sue
cess. no odds by what name it may be called. |


Now why would | vote for the Republican |
candidates Well, first, suppose so far as
the honesty and competency of Republicans are |
concerned our nation has no better men, and |
1 doubt not aside from the subject of Slavery
all questions Of government will be as ably and |
honestly disposed of as they would be or could
be by men of any other political party in our
country, and that all our interests, home and
foreign-I say nothing of Slavery now-will |
be as safe in their hands as in the hands of any
others in the nation. have no reason for be-
leiving to the contrary. Can you give me any
good reason? Now as 10 the only remaining
question, Aauerg, l wish to observe particular
ly: This party occupies middle ground be-
tween the dbotltlon party on the one extreme,
which advocates the entire abolition of slavery,
not only i'll the Territories, but also in the old
Slave States, using the Constitution as an in
strument to effect this work, and the Demo
cratic party on the other extreme, which en-
dorses an Interpretation of the Constitution
which makes slavery national and fastens it r-
upon the Territories beyond the
power of any government in any quarter to
remove it, throwing all its mighty influence as
a party to the support and propagation of
that institution which is cursing our fair land
every day.


With regard to the doctrine of this party
in reference to slavery in the Territories, you
will see very distinctly from the accompanying
speech of MIR. Lincoln, that it holds precisely
the doctrine of the Fathers" Had the par
ty the power think the first act would be to
pass the Ordinance of 1887 over all the Ter
l think this right as far as it goes,
better this than nothing, and for this would
use all my influence to put that party into
power. You ask me whether this is Popular
Sovereignty? l say it is just the Popular Sow
reignty that ought to be applied to ev4ry foot
of land in the United States! 1t is not only
the doctrine Of the " Fathers but it is the
correct principle founded on justice and hui
manity.


1 have said party uames are nothing, party
are nothing without correct
principles now add, the right will not cease
to progress let the Republican party get into
power with its present doctrine of leaving sIa-