Year: 1860

owner OF any other property has to 60 there
and carry his property" Here is the ex-
treme dogma Of slavery in full force. Let
him follow this to its natural conclusion, and
no Breckenridge man could ask more.


| At another time we find him declaring that
sovereign States have the right to make
their constitutions and establish their own
governments; but that be has never claimed
these powers for the territories, nor has he
ever failed to resist such claims when set up
by others.' Now, then, under this theory
can popular sovereignty have any fjothol 4
in the territories? /. is clear that all terri.
torial legislation against slavery must be in
valid.


And then again, in another place, by round
about language, he admits that, according
to the Dred Scott decision, which he declares
that he approves the people of a territory
cannot, by any legislation. confiscate slave
property or impair the g constitutional right
of the masters to this property in the terri
tory. With this limitation, pray where,
again, is popular sovereignty?
| But elsewhere, as if to furnish something
for the other side he intimates a policy OF
inaction, by the territorial legislature with
regard to slavery, and asks "would not the
inaction of the local legislature, its refusal to
provide syace de, or to punish offences
against that species of property, exclude
slavery Just as effectually as a constitutional
prohibition?' And here is the end of the
matter Changing forms as often as Pro.
teus, we find that he admits first that slavery
goes into the territories under the Constitu-
ton; secondly, that the right Of property in
slave cannot be destroyed by the terrific
rial legislature. And all that this legislature
can do by way Of opposition, is to fold its
hands and to seal its tongue in inaction-
What, then, is this wonderful doctrine So
far as it means anything it is simply this
that the people of a territory have right to
| introduce slavery, but not to prohibit it
And this ispopular sovereignty! Verify, be-
tween this and the Breckenridge dogma there
is about the same difference as between the
much vexed doctrines of transubstantialation
and consubstantialation where there was
only the difference of single syllable beth
signiied the same thing. +.
Nor is this all. The convention at Balti-
more, which nominated Mr.. Douglas, has de-
clared by formal resolution, "that the meas
ure of restriction, whatever it may be, i'm
posed by tie Federal Constitution or the
power of the territorial Legislature over the
subject Of domestic relations, as the same
has been or shall hereafter be finally deter
mined by the Supreme Court of the United
States, should be respected by all good citi-
zens, and enforced NTH promptness and yf2el-
iy By epery branch Of the General Gorern-
ment" And Mr. Douglas, IN accepting his
nomination, has expressly recognized this
doctrine, thus in advance delivering over his
10
mercies of the Supreme Court. ...-.-.
How different is the position of Mr.. Lin
coin, who has openly said, in his debate with
Mr.. Douglas page 20): "If We're in Con-
gress, and a vote should come upon q ques-
ton whether slavery should be prohibited in
a new territory, in spite of the Dred Scott
decision, would vote that it should. That
is what | would do" And allow me to add
that this, doctrine of Mr.. Lincoln is the doc
trine of the Republican party. Any doc
trine short of this runs into the track of Mr.
Douglas.


The tree is known by its fruits and if any
thing further were needed to expose this
trick of popular sovereignty, it might be
found in It's fruits as boasted bv Mr.. Douglas
\ slave code most revolving in character, had
been adopted by the territorial legislature OF
New Mexico, not only establishing slavery
there, including the scrflom of the whites,
but prohibiting emancipation


If you follow Mr. Douglas in his various
speeches, YOU cannot fail to be shocked by
the heartlessness of his language. Never in
history has any public man insulted human
nature 50 boldly. At the North he announc-
es himself as always for the white man
against the nigger; but at the South he is
I" for the niger against the crocodile 1t
was natural that such man who thus mock
ed at portion Of God S creation made in the
Divine image, should say: Vote slavery
up or vote it down. He knew well that
under his device the settlers could only vote
it up, and that they were not allowed to vote
it down. But this speech attestS his brazen
insensibility to human rights. Not so spoke
the fathers of the Republic, who taught us
all to miss no opportunity to vote slavery
down. Not so spoke Washington, who de
clarcd that to the abolition of slavery, "h,s
suffrage should never be wanting" And
such is the whole political philosophy of this
presidential candidate, except that man is
thus Indifferent to the rights of whole race,
is naturally Indifferent to other things which
make for justice and peace.


u
ton is in the way of public business, and
that it must be removed from Congress But
who has thrust it there so incessantly aS
himself? Nay, who so largely as himself
has been the occasion of its discussion p
But his complaint illustrates anew the old
| fable. It was the wolf above that troubled
the waters, and not the lamb below 1t is
! the slave propagandists-among whom the
champion of popular sovereignty must find a
plaee--who from the Missouri compromiso
in 1920, through all the different stages OF
the discussion, down to the rejection Of Kan
sas rs a free state at the recent session, have
rendered it impossible to avoid the slavery
question. BY their new-sangled, audacous
theories of slavery, both morally and consti
tutionally, they have aroused a natural op-
position and put all who truly love Their
country on the defensive Yes, it is in de
fence of the constitution perverted, Of reason
insulted, and of humanity disowned, tha,
we have been obliged to speak.


True, the country needs repose. but it is
the repose of liberty, and not the repose o
| despotsm. And believe me, that glad day
can never come until the mad assumptions
for slavery are all rejected, and the govern,
mant is once more brought back to the spirit
of its founders 1t was clearly understood
at the beginning that Congress could no.
touch slavery in the States, and this is tn,
doctrine of the Republican party now. Bu
it was also clearly understood at the begin
ming TINT slavery everywhere else was within
the jurisdiction Of Congress, and this also is
the docrine of the Republican party. With
the practical acceptance of these two correl
ativc principles the slavery question vii