»■ "^^ cs- rift. -*.•' ^ »_!.,<W ♦ ''^ 
 
 
iV^^* .^^' %. •-!«^.* . ^' "^ -.^^^Y** ><?>' "^^ •' 
 
 
 VAO^ 
 
 ^oV" 
 
 
 
 
 Ov-. 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 v<s^ 
 
 
 »* .'^ 
 
 ^0 
 
 • o 
 
 
 
 
 •^K* * « - o 
 
 
n P'OLITICAL I^ECORD OF 
 
 ;TEPHEN a, DOUGLAS ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION, 
 
 A TRACT ISSUED BY THE 
 
 ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENIiAEGE©. 
 .^ jj^ 
 
 PART I.,. 
 
 ANTI-SLAVERY. | PART 11.,...'. PRO-SLAVERY. 
 
 PART III. , MISCELLANEOUa. 
 
 PART I.— ANTI-SLAVERY. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS ENDEATOES TO PROHIBIT SLATERT 
 IN " STATES." 
 
 On the 25th day of January, 1845, the 
 Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, a member of the 
 House of Representatives from Illinois, in- 
 troduced the following amendment to the 
 joint resolution for the annexation of Toxjs, 
 which had been presented by Mr. Brown, of 
 Tennessee : 
 
 "And in such States as may be formed out of said 
 territory north of the Missouri Compromise line, 
 slavery or involuntary servitude — except for crime — 
 shall be prohibited." 
 
 The record of this action is- found in the 
 Congresaional Globe, Vol. XIV, (2d session, 
 28th Congress,) page 193. The -amendment 
 became a part of the law for annexing Texas, 
 and will be found on page 798 of the U. S. 
 Statutes at Large, for 18SG-1845. Let it be 
 observed, that while Thomas Jefferson and 
 the fathers of the Republic proposed to pro- 
 hibit slavery in Territories only, and while the 
 Republican party of to-day propose no more 
 and no less, Stephen A. Douglas sought, in 
 1845, to prohibit it instates, even though the 
 people wanted it ! 
 
 HE DISTINCTLY ASSERTS THE RIGHT OF CON- 
 GRESS TO GOVERN THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1845, Mr. Douglas 
 made a speech in the House of Representatives, 
 on the bills for the admission of Iowa and 
 Florida into the Union. In this speech he 
 said: 
 
 "The father may bind h's son during his minority, 
 but the moment he attahis his majority his fetters are 
 severed, and he is free to regulate his own conduct. 
 SO WITH THE TERRITORIES ; TIIEY ARE SUB- 
 JECT TO THE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL 
 OF CONGRESS DURING THEIR INFANCY— THEIR 
 MINORITY ; but when they attain their m:ijonty 
 AND OBTAIN ADMISSION INTO THE UNION, 
 they are free from all restraints and restrietions, ex- 
 cept such as the Constitution of the United States has 
 imposed upon each and all of the States." — [Cong. 
 Globe, vol. U, page 2S4.] 
 
 HE REGARDS THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AS A 
 "SACRED THING." 
 
 On the 23d of October, 1849, Mr. Dougka 
 made a speech at Springfield, Illinois, which 
 was published in the Slate Register of Nov. 
 8th, in which he used the following remark- 
 able language : 
 
 " The Missouri Compromise has an origin akin to tbaS 
 of the Constitution of the United States, conceived in 
 the same spirit of fraternal affection, and calculated to 
 remove forever the danger which seemed to threaten, 
 at some distant day, to sever the social bond of union. 
 All the evidences of public opinion, at that day, seeme"! 
 to indicate that this Compromise had became canonized 
 in the hearts of the American people as a sacred thin», 
 which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough 
 to disturb."' 
 
 HE AWARDS THE GLORY OP THE MISSOURI 
 COMPROMISE TO HENRY CLAY. 
 
 In the same speech, and in the same con- 
 text, he continued as follows: 
 
 " The Missoiyi Comjiromise had then been in prac- 
 tical operation for about a quarter of a century, and 
 had received the saction and approbation of men of all 
 parties, in every section of the Union. It had allayed 
 all sectional jealousies and irritations, growing out of 
 this vexed question, and harmonized and tranquilized 
 the whole country. It had given to Henry Clay, as its 
 prominent champion, the proud soubriquet of the 
 'Great Paeifeator,'' and by that title, and for that 
 service, his political friends had repeatedly appealed to 
 the people to rally under his standard, as a presidential 
 candidate, as the man who had exhibited the patiotism, 
 .and the power to suppress an unholy and treasonable 
 agitation, and preserve the Union. He (Mr. Douglas) wsis 
 not aware that any man or any party, from any sec- 
 tion of the Uniun, had ever urged as an objection to 
 Mr. Clay, that he was a Great Champion of the Missouri 
 Compromise. On the contrary, the effort was made by 
 the opponents of BIr. Clay, to prove that he was not 
 entitled to the exclusive merit of that great patriotic 
 measure, and that the honor was equally due to others 
 as well as him, for securing its adoption. 
 
 "He, (Mr. Douglas) in connection with the entire 
 delegation from Illinois, and according to his recollec- 
 tion, in^company with nearly all the mcnabers from the 
 Northern States, and some forty odd members from the 
 Slave Staffs, voted for the Oregon bill, containing a 
 prohibition of slavery in that Tertitory, leaving the 
 
V-^K 
 
 people to regulate their own domestic institutions uftder 
 the Constitution when they should become a kUite. 
 This triumphant vote, uniting both Northern and South- 
 ern members in favor of the Oregon bill, was_a matter 
 of no practical importance so far as the existence of 
 the institution of slavery in that country was concerned, 
 and is only referred to now, for the purpose of showing 
 that at that day, the Constitutional right of Congress to 
 legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, 
 
 •WAS KOT VIRTITALLT RESISTED, IF, INDEED, IT WAS SB- 
 RIOOSLT QOKSTIONED." 
 
 HK BELIEVES IT IS NOT rNJtJST TO THE SOUTH 
 TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY. 
 
 On the IP.th day of March, 1850, Mr. Doug- 
 las made a speech in the Senate, defendnig 
 the " sacred thing," from which the following 
 is an average extract : 
 
 " The next in the series of aggressions complained of 
 by the Senator from South Carolina, is the Missouri 
 Compromise. The Missouri Compronvse, an act of 
 Northern injustice, designed to deprive the South ol 
 her due share of the Territories ! Why, sir, it was 
 only on this very day that the Senator from Mississippi 
 despaired of any peaceable adjustment of existing dif- 
 ficulties, because the M.ssouri Compromise line could 
 not be extended to 1.^ Pitific. That measure was 
 oriirinally adopted ia t el i i tor the admission of Mis- 
 souri bT the- unioa i; Northern and Southern votes. 
 The South has always i roiessed to be willing to abide 
 by it, and even to continue it, as a fair and honorable 
 adjustment of a vexed and ditficult question. In li4o 
 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation ol 
 Texas by Southern as well as Northern votes, without 
 the slightest complaint that it was unfair to any section 
 of the'' country. In 1S46 it received the support of 
 every Southern member of the House of Representa- 
 tives—Whig and Democrat— without exception, as an 
 alternative measure to the Wilmot Proviso. And again m 
 1S4S as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on mymo- 
 iion, it received the vole, if I recollect right-and I do 
 not think that I can possibly be mistaken— of every 
 Southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including 
 the Senator from South Carolina himself, (Mr. Cal- 
 houn ) And yet we are now told that this is snly 
 second to the Ordinance of 17S7 in the series of aggres- 
 sions on the South."— t'owfir. Globe, Appendix, -vol. 
 22,73ort 1, p«(7« 370. 
 
 " The Territories belong to the United States as one 
 people, one nation, and are to be disposed of for the 
 common benefit of all, according to the principles of 
 the Constitution. Each State, as a member of the Con- 
 federacy has a right to a voice in forming the rules and 
 regulations for the government of the Tt-rritories; but 
 the different sections— North, South, East and AV est— 
 have no such right. It is SO violatiox of Southern 
 BIGHTS TO PRonmiT SLAVERY. "—Con£>. Olobe, Appm- 
 dix, vol. 22, part 1, page 869. 
 
 HE ADVOCATES THE "IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT" 
 AND THE ULTIMATE EXTINCTION OF SLAVERY ! 
 
 On the same day, and in the same_ speech, 
 Mr. Douglas continued in the following sur-^ 
 prising strain— surprising, if we reflect in 
 whose mouth the sentiments are found : 
 
 " I have already had occasion to remark, that at the 
 time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were 
 twelve (slave States) and six of them have since abol- 
 isBed slavery. This fact shows that the cause of free- 
 dom has steadily and firmly advanced, while slavery 
 has receded in the same ratio. We all look forward 
 with confidence to the time when Delaware, Mar.Wand 
 Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably North 
 Carolina and Tennessee, icill adopt one gradual syti- 
 Um of emancipalion, under the operation of which, 
 those'States must, in process of time become free. 
 
 And again, on the same page, speaking of a 
 proposition to amend the Constitution so as to 
 preserve an " equilibrium " in point of num- 
 bers between free and slave States, he says: 
 
 " Then, sir, the proposition of the Senator from>».' 
 South Carolina is entirely impracticable. It is also ini\YJ 
 admissible, if practicable. It wculd revolutionize thejA* j 
 fundamental princijile of the (government. It would Q 
 destroy the great principle of popular equality which 
 must m cessarily form the basis of all free institutions. 
 It would he a retrograde morement in an ageof pro- 
 gress, thai would astonish the Korld.— Congressional 
 Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, pari \,page S71. 
 
 HE BELIEVES THAT CONGRESS MAY RIGHTFULLY 
 EXCLUDE SLAVES, BANKS OR ARDENT SPIRITS 
 FROM THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 On the ISth of March, 18-50, in the speech 
 rtlready quoted from, Mr. Douglas distinctly 
 asserted the right of Congress to prohibit the 
 introduction of certain species of property in 
 the Territories, as being "unwise, immoral 
 and contrary to the pTinciples of sound pubhc 
 policy," among which he enumerated property 
 in slaves. Ho sad: 
 
 " But you say that we propose to prohibit by law 
 your emigrating to the Territories with your property. 
 We phop'ose no such thing. We recogni&e your right, 
 in common with our own, to emigrate to the Territories 
 with your propertv, and there to hold and enjoy it in 
 subordination to the laws you may find in force in the 
 country. These laws, in some respects, differ from our 
 own as the laws of the various States of this Union vary 
 on some points from the laws of each other. Some 
 sjtecies of properly are excluded- by law in most of 
 the States as u-ell as 'Territories, as being unwise. 
 Immoral, OR CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES 
 OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY. For instance, the 
 banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Ore- 
 iron or California with his bank. The bank may be 
 property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so 
 when taken into a State or Territory where banking ia 
 prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, 
 brandy, and all the intoxicating drinks, are recognized 
 and considered as property in most of the States, if not 
 all of them ; but no citizen, whether from the North or 
 South can take this species of property with him, and 
 h(dd sell or use at his pleasure, in all ths Territories, 
 because it is prohibited by the local law— in Oregon by 
 the statutes of the Territory, and in the Indian country 
 bv' the acts of Congiess. NOR CAN A MAN GO 
 THERE AND TAKE AND HOLD HIS SLAVE, FOR 
 THE SAMK REASON.- These laws, and many others 
 involvin" similar principles, are directed against no 
 8«cto7l, AND IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF NO STATE 
 OF THE UNION. They are laws against the intro- 
 duction sale and use of specific kinds of property, 
 whether brought rom the North or the South, or from 
 foreign count.iies."-Coni?. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, 
 part 1, page 371. 
 
 And again: 
 
 " But sir, I do not hold tbe doctrine that to exclude 
 any speiies of properly by law from any Territory is a 
 violation of any ri'^ht to property. Do you not exclude 
 banks from most ol the Territories? Do you not ex- 
 olaJp whisky from being introduced into large portions 
 of the Territory of the United States ? Do you not ex- 
 clude gamblin- tables, which are properly recognized 
 as such in the States where they ar« tolerated? And 
 has any one contended that the exclusion of gamb ing 
 tables and the exclusion of ardent spirits was a violation 
 of any constitutional privilege or right? And y^t it n 
 the case in a large portion of the territory of the United 
 States • but there is no outcry against tiJiat, because it 
 is the prohibition of a specific kind of property, and not 
 a prohibition against any section of the tnion. Uhy, 
 sir, our laws now prevent a tavern-keeper from going 
 into some of the territories of the United States and 
 tikin" a bar with him, and using and selling spirits 
 there" The law also proljibits certain other descniitipns 
 of business from being carried on in the Territories. 
 I am not, therefore, prepared to.say that, under the Con- 
 stitution u^e have not the power to pa-sslaws exclud- 
 ing Kegro Slavery from the Territories. It involves 
 theImb PKiNciPLES."-5^e6cA ofj^ator Dougl^s, 
 June M, 1S50, page^ 1115 and 1116, vol. 21, Cong. 
 Globe, 1S49-50. 
 
 ^C^/SjT- 
 
Kf 
 
 BELIEVES IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL TO PROHIBIT 
 SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 On the same day, and in the same speech, 
 Mr. Douglas referred to the WUmot Proviso 
 resolutions, passed by the Illinois Legislature, 
 tlius : 
 
 " My hands are tied upon one isolated point. 
 
 " A Senator — Can you not break loose? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas— / i^rt ye no desire to break loone. 
 My opinions are my own, and I express them freely. 
 Mj' votes belong to those who sent me here, and to 
 whom I am.resiionsible. I have never differed with my 
 constituency during seven years service in' Congress, 
 e.xcept upon one solitary question. AND EVEN ON 
 THAT 1 HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICUL- 
 TIES, and have previously twice given the same vote, 
 under peculiar circumstances ; which is now required 
 at my hands. / have no desire, therefore, to break 
 loone from the instruction."— [Con {/ressional Globe, 
 Appendix, vol. 22, pjari I, page 378.] . 
 
 THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE ILLINOIS J.EGISLATCIRE. 
 
 This is perhaps an appropriate place to in- 
 troduce the Wilmot Proviso re'solutious of 
 the Illinois Legislature of 1849. They were 
 adopted by the Senate on the 8th of January, 
 in that year, and by the House on the 9th, in 
 the following words : 
 
 '■^Resolved by the Senate of the State of JRUnois, 
 the Honae of Representatives conmrriyig, That our 
 Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Represen- 
 tatives requested, to use all honorable means in tlieir 
 power to procure the enactment of such laws by Con- 
 gress for the government of the countries and territo- 
 ries of the United States acquired by the treaty of 
 peace, friendship, limits, and settlement with the Re- 
 public of Me.xico, concluded February 2d, 184S, as 
 shall contain the express declaration 'that there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in said 
 territoriei, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 whereof the iiarty shalt have been duly convicted.' 
 
 ^'■Resolved by the House of Representatives, the 
 Senate concurring herein. That the Governor be re- 
 spectfully requested to transmit to each of our Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress, a copy of the joint 
 resolution of the Senate, concurred in by the House on 
 the 9th inst., for the exclusion of sjavery from the new 
 territories acquired by our late treaty with the Repub- 
 lic of Mexico." 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS RESPONDS TO THE RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 On the 23d of October, 1849, Mr. Douglas 
 made a speech in Springfield, III., (referred to 
 above,) which was published in the State Reg- 
 istei- of Nov. 8th, 1849. In this speech, he 
 referred to the resolutions of instructions 
 passed by the Legislature, in the following 
 language : 
 
 " In August, '43, he (Mr. Douglas) had voted for the 
 Oregon bill, containing a clause prohibiting slavery in 
 thai Territory. About four months afterwards, the 
 Legislature assembled and prepared a resolution in- 
 structing our Senators, and requesting our Representa- 
 tives in Congress to vote for territorial bills in Califor- 
 nia and New Mexico, containing a prohibition of slav- 
 ery in those Territories. In oX\i(ii- -vioyA^, they instruct- 
 ed him to do precisely what he had just donexoithout 
 instructions. He had been informed that his Whig 
 friends, arid perhaps a few others, peculiarly situated, 
 confidently expected him to resign, rather than obey 
 those instructions. It would be disagreeable to disap- 
 point them in so reasonable an expectation. It was a 
 serious question, however, requiring grave and delib- 
 erate consideration, whetlier he could conscienciously 
 do under instructions! what he had just done from 
 
 THE DICTATES OF BIS JUDGEMENT WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 As the decision of so important a questioa requires 
 time to consider, he invited them to wait and see." 
 
 If it be denied that Mr. Douglas ever utter- 
 ed these " Abolition " sentiments, a copy of 
 the Register containing them, may be found 
 on file, in one of the public offices at Spring-, 
 field, another at Jacksonville, and perhaps 
 others in other parts of the State, though it 
 is true, that several files of the paper con- 
 taining Mr. Douglas' speech of Oct. 23d, 1849, 
 were quite mysteriously mutilated or de- 
 stroyed in 18.54, after the repeal of the Mis- 
 souri Compromise. 
 
 HE THOUGHT THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE SHOULD 
 HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO THE PACIFIC. 
 
 The bill for the admission of California 
 being under debate, Mr. Turney (ofTenn.) 
 moved to amend the same by extending the 
 Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, 
 saying his amendment was a verbatim copy 
 of Douglas' amendment to the Oregon Bill. 
 Mr. Douglas, on the 6th day of August, 1850, 
 said: 
 
 " As reference has been made to me as the author of 
 a similar amendment, in 1S4S, to the Oregon Bill, I de- 
 sire only to state that I was then willing to adjust the 
 whole slavery question on that line and those terms ; 
 a7id if tlie whole acqxiired territory was noio in the 
 same condition as it was then, I WOULD NOW 
 VOTE FOR IT, AND SHOULD BE GLAD TO SEE IT 
 AD0PTE;D. But since then California has increased 
 her population, has a State government organized, and 
 •I cannot consent, for one, to destroy that State govern- 
 ment and send all back, or that such a line as this 
 shall form her southern boundary. For that reason, 
 AND THAT ALONE, I shall vote against the amend- 
 ment."— Co Jigr. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 2, 
 page 1519. 
 
 HE PATS THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTHWEST WERE 
 CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO SLAVERY. 
 
 In his speech in the Senate, on the 1.3th of 
 March, 1850, (already quoted from), Mr. 
 Douglas took occasion to vindicate the con- 
 scientious feelings of the people of Illinois 
 and the other North western States on the 
 subject of slavery, as follows : 
 
 " I undertake to say that there is not one of these 
 States that would have tolerated the institution of 
 slavery in its limits, even if it had been peremptorily 
 required to do so by act of Congress. It is a libel on 
 the character of these people, to say that the HONEST 
 SENTIMENTS OF THEIR HEARTS were smothered, 
 and their jiolitical action upon this question cnnstrainr 
 ed and directed by act of Congress. AVill the Senators 
 from Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa 
 make any such DEGRADING ADMISSION iu respect 
 to their constituencies? I WILL NEVER BLACKEN 
 THE CHARACTER OF MY OWN STATE BY SUCH 
 AN ADMISSION, and I know the character of my 
 Colleague too well to harbor the thought that he will 
 allow it to be said of her with impunity."— [Congres- 
 sional Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part I, page 3707] 
 
 Let the reader contrast this fine assertion 
 of the conscientious convictions of the peo- 
 ple of Illinois, with the horrible libel upon 
 the.ra contained in his speech of February 
 29th, 1860, in another column, and see 
 how he hrtS k^^pt his promise, "never to 
 blacken the character of his own State by 
 such an admission." 
 
 HE BELIEVES IN THE HIGHER LAW. 
 
 In his Chicago speech of October 23d, 1850, 
 
 defense of the 
 Douglas said : 
 
 Fugitive Slave Law, Mr 
 
' The general proposition that there is a law PARA-< 
 MOUNT TO ALL HUMAN ENACTMENTS— the law of 
 the Supreme Ruler of the Universe— 1 TRUST THAT 
 NO CIVILIZE.D AND CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IS PRE- 
 PARED TO QUESTION, MUCH LESS DENY. We 
 should recognize, respect and revere the Divine law." 
 —Sheahau's Life, of Douijlan ; page 1S4. 
 
 It is true that Mr. Douglas went on to argue 
 that the Divine hxw does not prescribe the 
 forms of human government, but all his sub- 
 sequent logic is not a match for the plain, une- 
 fiuivocal statement here given that " there is 
 a law paramount to all human enactments ! " 
 
 . SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO. 
 
 For the purpose of contrasting the views 
 uttered by Mr. Douglas in the Senate, on the 
 12th day of February, 1850, ou the subject of 
 slavery in the territory of New Mexico, with 
 his remarks on thti 16tb of May, 1860, (here- 
 after quoted,) we copy the following from the 
 Concjressimicd Globe, vol. 22, j^ari l.^a^f 343 ; 
 
 " Mr. Douglas. — If the question is controverted 
 here, I am ready to enter into the discussion of that 
 question at any time, upon a reasonable noti^ce, and to 
 show that hy the constituted authority and consti- 
 tutional authority of Mexico, slavery was prohibited in 
 Blexico at the time of the acquisition, and that prohibi- 
 tion was acquired by us with the soil, and that when we' 
 acquired the territory, we acquired it witli that at- 
 tached to it — that covenant running with the soil— and 
 that must continue, unless removed liy competent au- 
 thority. And because there was a prohibition thus at- 
 tached to the soil, I have always thought it was an un- 
 wise, unnecessary, and unjustifiable course on the part 
 of the people of ihe free States, to require Congress to 
 put another prohibition on the top of that one. It has 
 been the strovf/est argument that I have ever urged 
 against the prohibiti-on of slavery m the Territories, 
 tiiat it was not necessary for the accon^pUshnient of 
 their object." 
 
 THE THREE NEBRASKA BILLS. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 On the IVth day of February, A. D. 1853, 
 Senator Douglas, as Chairman of the. Com- 
 mittee on Teriitories, reported to the Senate 
 his first ''Act to Organize the Territory of 
 Nebraska." This act contained no repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise, and it failed to be- 
 come a law for want of time. Senator Atchi- 
 son, of Missouri, on the 3d day of March, 1853, 
 made some remarks on this bill, in which he 
 acknowledged that he had no hope of ever 
 seeing the Missouri Compromise repealed. He 
 said : 
 
 " I had two objections to this bill. One was, that 
 the Indian title to that Territory had not been extin- 
 guished, or at least but a very small portion of it had 
 been. Another was the Missouri Compromise, or, as 
 it is commonly called, the Slavery Restriction. It was 
 Hiy opinion at that time, — and I am not now very clear 
 on that subject, — that th9 law of Congress, when the 
 State of Missouri was admitted ioto the Union, exclud- 
 ing slavery from the Territory of Louisiana north of 36 
 deg. 30 min., would be e^lforced in that Territory unless 
 it was specially rescinded ; and whether that law was 
 in accordance with the Constitution of the United States 
 or not, it would do its work, and that work would be 
 to preclude slaveholders from going into that Territory. 
 But when I came to look into that question, I found 
 thai there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of 
 ihe 3ri-sxouri Compromise excluding Slavery from 
 that Territory. Now, sir, I am free to admit tiiat at 
 this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, I 
 .should oppose the organization or the settlement of that 
 Territory, unless my constituents and the l-onstituents 
 of the whole South, of the slave States of the Union, 
 could go into it upon the same footing, witli equal rights 
 and eqtial privileges, carrying th>it species of property 
 with them as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, I 
 
 acknowledge that that would have governed me, hut 1 
 have no hope that the restriction will ever he re- 
 pealed. 
 
 " I have always been of opinion that the first great 
 error committed, in the political history of this country, 
 was the Ordinance of 17S7, rendering the Northwest 
 Territory free ttrritory. The next great error was the- 
 Missouri Compromise. But they are both irremedi- 
 able. There is no remedy for them. We must suh- 
 mittothem. lampreparedtodoit. It is evident 
 
 THAT THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE CANNOT BE REPEALED. 
 
 So far as that question is concerned, we might as well 
 agree to the admission of this Territory now as next 
 year, or five or ten years hence."— [Cowg'. Globe, Ses: 
 s-ion 1S52-53, page 1113. 
 
 No. 2. • 
 
 On the 4th day of January, 1S54, Mr. 
 Dougla?, as Chairman of the Committee on 
 Territories, reported to the Senate his second 
 bill for the organization of Nebraska, The 
 bill was accompanied by a report, from which 
 the following is an extract: 
 
 " Your Committee do not feel themselves called upon 
 to enter into the discussion of these controverted ques- 
 tions. They Involve the same grave issues which pro- 
 duced the agination, the sectional strife and the fearful 
 struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and 
 prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in contro- 
 versy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican 
 laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the 
 Constitution and' the extent of the protection afforded 
 by it to slave propetry in the Territories, so YOUR 
 COM^riTTEE ARE NOT PREPARED KO W TO 
 RECOMMEND A DEPARTURE from the course 
 pursued on that memorable occasion, EITHER BY 
 AFFIR3IINO OR REPEALING THE EIGHTH 
 ■ SECTION OF THE MISSOURI ACT, or by any 
 Act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in 
 respect to the legal points of dispute." 
 
 Senator Dixon, of Kentucky, immediately 
 introduced an' amendment to the bill, declar- 
 ing the Missouri ComproQiise null and void. 
 Senator Atchison, of Missouri, then ihe pre- 
 siding officer of the Senate, threatened Mr. 
 Douglas with a displacement from his position 
 as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, 
 unless he should accept Mr.. Dixon's amend- 
 ment. Mr. Alcliison tells the whole story in 
 a speech delivered at Atchison City, Kansas, 
 on the 10th day of September, 1851, reported 
 as follows in the Parkville Lumxnary : 
 
 "He [Atchison] thought the Missouri Compromise 
 ought to be_repealed; he had pledged himself in his 
 public addresses to vote for no territorial organization 
 that would not virtually annul it ; and with this feeling 
 in his heart, he desired to be the chairman of the Senate 
 Committee on Territorieg when a bill was introduced. 
 
 " With this object in view, he had a private interview 
 with Mr. Douglas, and informed him of what he desired 
 — the introduction of a bill for Nebraska like what he 
 had promised to vote for, and that he would like to be 
 Cliairraan of the Committee on Territories, in order to 
 introduce such a measure ; and if he could get that 
 position, he would immediately resign as President of 
 the Senate. Judge Douglas requested twenty-four hours 
 to consider the matter, and if, at the expiration of that 
 time, he could not introduce such a bill as he [Mr. Atch- 
 ison] proposed; which would, at the same time, accord 
 with his own sense of justice to the South, he would 
 resign as Chairman of the Territorial Committee in 
 Democratic caucus, and exert his influence to get him 
 [Atchison] appointed. At the expiration of the given 
 time. Senator Douglas signified his intention to intro- 
 duce such a bill as had been spokeu of." 
 
 No. 8. 
 . Whether Atchison told the truth or not, it 
 is a fact that on the 23d day of January, 1854, 
 nineteen days after he was " not prepared to 
 recommend a departure" from the Missouri 
 prohibition, Mr. Douglas brought in a new 
 bill, dividing Nebraska into two Territoriea — 
 
Kansas and Xobraska — and repealing the 
 MisFouri Compromise in the following torms: 
 " That the Constitution, and all the laws of the 
 United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall 
 have the same force and effect within the said Territory 
 of Nebraska (ahd Kansas) as elsewhere within the 
 United Stales, except the eighth section of the act 
 
 preparatory t-o the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and 
 twenty, which BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE 
 PRINCIPLE OP NON-INTERVENTION BY CON- 
 GRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE STATES AND 
 TERRITORIES, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LEG- 
 ISLATION OF ISoO, commonly called the Compromise 
 Measures, is hereby declared in(q)erative and void." 
 
 PART II.— PRO-SLAVERY. 
 
 The intioduction of the third "Nebraska bill, 
 repealing the Missouri Compromise, constitutes 
 the turning point in Mr. Douglas' political 
 liighway. From this sharp corner, his course 
 is wholly and utterly pro-slavery, down to the 
 introduction of the Lccompton bill in the 
 Senate, where he takes a position ot indiffer- 
 ence, best expressed in his phrase, "Don't 
 care whether slavery is voted down or voted 
 up." The indifferent mood is preserved a 
 little more than two years, when, as will be 
 seen by the record, he becomes more wrath- 
 fully pro-slavery than ever before. 
 
 Popular Sovereignty. 
 
 The meaning of " Popular Sovereignty " 
 is now shown by Mr. Douglas himself to be 
 this : That the people of a Territory shall not 
 have the power of electing their own executive 
 officers or judges, nor the right to make their' 
 ow^n laws, except by a two-thirds vote if the 
 Federal Governor shall disapprove them ; and 
 thai they shall not have the rrght to exclude ilavrry 
 at all. It is. further shown that under Popu- 
 lar Sovereignty "no such thing as sovereign 
 power attaches to a Tenitory," and that the 
 settlers upon all unorganized territory of the 
 United States are to be treated as vagrants 
 and rebel?. In other words, that Popular 
 •Sovereignty means the right of the people of 
 the Territories to be governed entirely by the 
 Pres'dent and the Supreme Couit. Let the 
 reader give his attention to the following facts, 
 taken frotn the record, and judge whether 
 this is not a correct statement of " Popular 
 Sovereignty ": 
 
 POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE JiEBRASKA 
 BILL. 
 
 The twelfth section of the Kansas Nebraska 
 Act says: 
 
 "That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, 
 Associiite Justices, Attorney and Marshal, shall be 
 nominated, and, by and with the'advice and consent of 
 the Seriate, appointed by the President of the United 
 
 States." I 
 
 The sixth section of the same act says: 
 " Every bill which shall have passed the Council and i 
 House of Representatives of ssid Territory, shall, be- 
 fore it become a law, be presented to the Governor of 
 the Territory; if he approvi^ he shall sign it, but if not 
 he shall return it with his olijections to the House in 
 wtiich it originated, who shall enter the objections, at 
 large, on their journal, and proceed to ro-consider it. 
 If, after such re-consideration, TWo-xniitDS of that 
 House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, to- 
 gether with the objections, to the other House, by which 
 it shall likewise be re-considered, and if approv.ed by 
 TWO-THIRDS of that House, it shall become a law." 
 
 The seventh section of the same act says: 
 " The Governor shall nominate, and by and with the 
 advice and consent of the legislative council, appoint 
 all officers not herein otherwise provided for ; and 
 in the first instance the Governor alone may appoint all 
 said officers who shall hold their offices until tlie end of 
 the first session of the legislative assembly, and he shall 
 lay off the necessary districts for members of the coun- 
 cil and House of Representatives, and all other offi- 
 cers." 
 
 These extracts are introduced, not because 
 there has ever been any dispute about the 
 facts, but for the purpose of giving jury evi- 
 dence of the proposition sought to be estab- 
 lished concerning the " true intent and mean- 
 ing" of Popular Sovereignty. 
 
 HE TOTES DOWN "POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY." 
 
 The true intent and meaning of the Ne- 
 braska bill was declared to be "not to legis- 
 late slavery into any Territory or State, nor 
 to exclude it therefrom, but to leave tlie peo- 
 ple perfectly free to form and regulate their 
 own domestic institutions in their own way, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United 
 States." This was the "stump speech in the 
 belly of the bill," as Mr,. Benton justly char- 
 acterized it. On the 15th of February, 1854, 
 Senator Chase offered an amendment to the 
 bill, in order to allow the people to exclude 
 slavery while in a Territorial condition, if 
 they wanted to. The amendment was as 
 follows: 
 
 "Mr. Chase. — I desire to submit an amendment — 
 to insert immediately after the words, ' subject to the 
 Constitution of the United States,' the following : 
 
 " ' Under which the people of the Territory, through 
 their appropriate representatives, may, if they see 
 fit, PROHIBIT THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY 
 THEREIN.'"— CoHj/. Globe, 1854, pari I, page i2l, 
 
 After considerable discussion a vote was 
 taken, on the 2d of March following, and the 
 amendment was rejected by — yeas, 10 ; nays, 
 30— DOUGLAS voting in the negative. Thus 
 it appeared that the people were not left per- 
 fectly free to'exdiule slavery, according to Mr. 
 Douglas' understanding of his own bill. 
 
 HE DOES IT AGAIN. 
 
 On the 2d of July, 1856, Senator Trumbull 
 offered the following amendment to the bill 
 for the admission of Kansas, commonly known 
 as the " Toombs Bill": 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That the provision of the 
 ' Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- 
 sas,' which declares it to be the ' true intent and mean- 
 ing ' of said act ' not to It'gislate slavery into any Ter- 
 : itory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, bat to 
 
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- 
 late the'ir domestic institutions in their own way, sub- 
 ject only to the Constitution of the United States,' 
 was intended to and does confer upon or leave to the 
 people of Kansas full power, at any time, through its 
 Territorial Legislature, to exclude slavery from, said 
 Territory, or to recognize and regulate it therein." 
 
 The vote stood — yeas 11, nays 84. DOUG- 
 LAS voting in the negative. The amendment 
 may be found on page 796, and the vote on 
 page '799 of the Appendix to the Congressional 
 Globe, 1853-56. 
 
 HE SATS IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE SUPREME 
 COURT. 
 
 On this occasion, (to wit, on the 2d of July, 
 1836,) Mr. Douglas used the following lan- 
 guage in discussing the amendment : 
 
 "My opinion in regard to the question which my 
 colleague is trying to raise here, has been well known 
 to the Senate for years. It has been repeated over 
 and over again. lie tried, the other day, as those as- 
 sociated with him on the stump used to do two years ago 
 and last year, to ascertain what were my opinions on this 
 point in the Nebraska bill. I TOLD THEM IT WAS A 
 JUDICIAL QUESTTON. My answer then was, and now 
 is, that IF THE CONSTITUTION CARRIES SLAVERY 
 THERE, LET IT GO, AND NO POWER ON EARTH 
 CAN TAKE IT AWAY; but if the Constitution does 
 not carry it there, no power but the people can carry it 
 there. Whatever may be the true decision of that con- 
 stitutional point, it would not have aCfected my vote for 
 or against the Nebraska bill. I sJiould have supported 
 it as readily if I thought the decision would he one 
 way as the other. If my colleague will examine my 
 speeches, he will find that declaration. He will also 
 find that I stated I would not discuss the LEGAL 
 QUESTION, for that by the bill we referred it to the 
 Courts." — Appendix to Cong. Globe, page 79T. 
 
 And again on the same day, in reply to Mr. 
 Trumbull, he said : 
 
 " I say I am willing to leave it to the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, because the Constitutiorj intrusted 
 it -there." — Appendix to (Jong. Olobe, 1S55-G, page 
 797. 
 
 WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED. 
 
 This is a proper place to give the decision 
 of the Supreme Court on the question of 
 slavery in the Territories, and the right of 
 Territorial Legislatures to exclude it. It will 
 be found on pages 450 and 451, vol. 19, How- 
 ard's Reports, (Dred Scott vs. John F. A. San- 
 ford,) where, after deciding that Congress had 
 no power to prohibit slavery in a Territory, the 
 Court proceeded as follows : 
 
 " The powers over person and property of which we 
 speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in 
 express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exer- 
 cise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the 
 States, but the words are general, and extend to the 
 whole territory over wliich the Constitution gives it 
 power to legislate, including those portions of it re- 
 maining under Territorial Government, as well as that 
 covered by States. It is a total absence of jiower eve- 
 rywhere within the dominion of the United States, and 
 places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights 
 are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the 
 States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against 
 any inroads which the General Government might at- 
 tempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. 
 And if Congress itself cannot do this — if it is beyond 
 the powers conferred on the Federal Government — it 
 will he admitted, we presume, that it could not 
 authorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. 
 It coidd confer no power on any local government 
 estalilished hy its authority, to violate the provisions 
 of the Constitution. 
 " It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a 
 
 diCference between property in a slave and otlier prop- 
 erty, and that different rules may be applied to it in 
 expounding the Constitution of the United States. 
 And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings 
 of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and 
 slave, and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers 
 which governments may exercise over it, have been 
 dwelt upon in the argument. 
 
 " But in considei'ing the question before us, it must 
 be borne in mind that there is no law of nations stand- 
 ing between the people of the United States and their 
 government, and interfering with tlieir relation to each 
 other. The powers of the government, and the rights 
 of the citizens under it, are positive and practical regu- 
 lations plainly written down. The people of the United 
 States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, 
 and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power 
 over the person or property i f a citiztn but what the 
 citizens of the Unit<.'d St it s .«ave granted. And no 
 laws or usage~ o ■ other iii . n or reasoning of states- 
 men or juri^f n on the reli on (l master and slave, 
 can enlarge the powers of the government, or take from 
 the citizen the rjgr.ts they have reserved. And if the 
 Constitution recognizes the riglit of property of the 
 master in a slave, and makes no distinction between 
 that description of property and other- property owned 
 by a citizen, no tribunal, actiiig under the autJiifpnty 
 cf the United States, whether it he legislative, exe- 
 cutive or judicial, has a right to draw such a dis- 
 tinction, or deny to it the henejit of the provisions 
 and giuirantees ^ohich have been provided for the 
 protection of private pro2:)erty against the encroach- 
 ments of the government. 
 
 " Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of 
 this opinion, upon a different point, THE RIGHT OF 
 PROPERTY IN A SLAVE IS DISTINCTLY AND 
 EXPRESSLY AFFIRMED IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
 The right of traffic in it, like an ordinary article of 
 merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the 
 citizens of the United States in every State that might 
 desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in 
 express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, 
 if the slave escapes from Ins owner. This is done in 
 plain words, too plain to be misunderstood. And no 
 word can be found in the Constitution wliich gives 
 Congress a greater power over slave property, or 
 which entitles property of that kind to less protection 
 than property of any other description. The only 
 power conferred is the poteer, coupled with the 
 duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his 
 rights?' 
 
 POINTS ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISION. 
 
 In the 19th vol. of Howard's Reports, page 
 395, a syllabus of the Dred Scott decision, 
 embracing the points established by the 
 Courc, is given in the following words : 
 
 1st. " The Territory thus acquired, is acquired by the 
 people of the United States for their common and equal 
 Ijenetit, through their agent and trustee — the Federal 
 Government. Congress can exercise no power over the 
 rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Terri- 
 tory whicli is prohibited by the Constitution. The Gov- 
 ernment and the citizen, whenever the Territory is 
 open to settlement, both enter with their respective 
 rights defined and limited by the Constitution." 
 
 2d. " Congress has no right to prohibit citizensof any 
 particular State or States, from taking up their homes 
 there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. 
 Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of cit- 
 izens which it refuses to another. The Territory is ac- 
 quired for their equal and common benefit, and if open 
 to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same 
 terms." 
 
 3d. " Every Citizen has a right to take with him 
 INTO THB Territory any article of prorerty which 
 THE Constitution of thb United States recognizes 
 
 AS PROPERTY." 
 
 4th. " The Constitution of the United States rec- 
 ognizes slaves as property, AND PLEDGES THE FeDFRAL 
 Government to protect it. And Congress cannot ex- 
 ercise any more authority over property of that de- 
 scription, than it may Constitutionally exercise over 
 property of any other kind." 
 
5th. "The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a 
 citizen of the United States talving m-ith Iiim his slaves 
 when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, 
 
 IS AN EXERCISE OF ACTHORITT OVER PRIVATE PROPBKTT 
 WHICH IS NOT WARRANTED BT THE CoNSTITDTION, and the 
 
 removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, 
 gave him no title to freedom." 
 
 6th. "While it remains a Territory, Congress may 
 legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional 
 powers, in relation to citizens of the United States, and 
 may establish a Territorial Government, and the form 
 of this local government must be regulated by the dis- 
 cretion of Congress ; but with powers not exceeding 
 those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is au- 
 thorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, 
 In respect to their rights of property." 
 
 Senator Benjamin, in his speech of May 
 22d, 1860, says that this sylLabus was prepar- 
 ed and written out by Judge Taney himself. 
 
 MR. POUGLAS ENDORSES THE WHt'LE DECIS'OX. 
 
 The Dred Scott decision was delivered in 
 March, 1S5Y. Mr. Buchanan had just been in- 
 augurated, and the Senate liad just adjourned. 
 Mr. Douglas took an early occasion to give in 
 his adhesion, not only to the deciswri that 
 Dred Scott was not a citizen, and therefore 
 could not bring suit in a Circuit Court of the 
 United States, but also to the obiter dictum, 
 that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legis- 
 lature could prohibit slavery in a Territory. 
 Having found a Grand Jury in session at Spring- 
 field, in the month of June following, an in- 
 vitation was procured from that august body, 
 calling for the views of Mr. Douglas on three 
 points, to-wit: the Lecompton Convention in 
 Kansas ; the proposed invasion of Utah ; and 
 the Dred Scott decision. On the last men- 
 tioned topic he spoke as follows : 
 
 " The character of Chief- Justice Taney and the asso- 
 ciate judges who concurred with him require no eulogy — 
 or vindication from me. They are endeared to the people 
 of the United States by their eminent public services — 
 Tenerated for their great learning, wisdom and ex- 
 perience — and beloved for the spotless purity of their 
 characters and their exemplary lives. The poisonous 
 shafts of p.Trtisan malice will fall harmless at their feet, 
 while their judicial decisions will stand in all future 
 time, a proud monument to their greatness, the artniiia- 
 tion of the good and wise, and a rebulie to the partisans 
 of faction an'd lawless violence. 
 
 "The Court did not attempt to avoid responsibility 
 by disposing of the case upcjn technical points without 
 touching the merits, nor did they go out of their way to 
 decide questions not properly before them and directly 
 presented by the record. ZiJce hnyiesi and cnnncien- 
 fious judged, as they are, they met and decided each 
 point as it arose, and faithfully performed their whole 
 duty, and nothing but their duty, to thtir country, BY 
 DETERMINING ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THE 
 CASE, and nothing but what was essential to the de- 
 cision of tlie c;ise upon its merits." — Di/vglax' Sj^t'ind- 
 feld Grand Jury Speech, June \1th, lSo~— as piit/- 
 lished in the State Kegister. 
 
 HE BELIEVES THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE 
 OP THE TERRITOBIES ARE "HELD IN ABEYANCE." 
 
 • On the 12th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas 
 submitted his famous report, accompanying 
 a bill for the admission of Kansas into the 
 Union as a State. Senator Chase's amendment 
 to the Nebraska Bill, authorizing the people 
 to exclude slavery while in a territorial condi- 
 
 tion, having been voted down, and the right 
 of a Territorial Legislature to prohibit slavery 
 having thus been denied, it became important 
 to know whether, in Mr. Douglas' opinion, the 
 pmple can in any other way exclude slavery 
 prior to the formation of a State Constitution. 
 On this point Mr. Douglas is very explicit in 
 denying the right. In the report here 'referred 
 to he says : 
 
 " Without deeming it necessary to express any opin- 
 ion on this occasion, in reference to that [the Rhode 
 Island] controversy, it is evident, that 'the principles 
 upon which it was conducted are not involved in the 
 revolutionary straggle now going on in Kansas; for 
 
 THE REASON THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY OP A TERRITORY RE- 
 MAINS IN ABEYANCE SUSPENDED IN THE 
 UNITED STATES, IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, 
 UNTIL THEY SHALL BE ADMITTED INTO THE 
 UNION AS A STATE."— [Douglas' -Report on Kansas 
 AiBau's, March 12, 1366, page 39.] 
 
 This remarkable statement, taken by itself, 
 would seem to be an open avowal of the Re- 
 publican doctrine that Congress is the right- 
 ful guardian of the Territories until they are 
 prepared for admission into the Union as 
 States, but taken with the context, it is no 
 less than a foreshadovi'ing of the Dred Scott 
 decision. In other words, it denies that spe- 
 cies of " sovereignty " to the Territories 
 which authorizes them to exclude slavery, and 
 holds them on this point rigidly " subject to 
 the Constitution of the United States," as in- 
 terpreted by the Supreme Court. It is con- 
 clusive, however, of one thing, to-wit, that 
 ^Hhe aovereignty of a Territory remains in abey- 
 ance " — that the people cannot do the things 
 which Mr. Douglas himself proclaimed they 
 might do^ — that they cannot do those things 
 either through a Territorial liCgislature of by 
 Mass Convention, for the reason that their 
 sovereignty is " suspended in the United 
 States, in trust for the people, until they 
 
 SHALL BE ADMITTED INTO THE UNION AS A 
 
 HE SATS THAT SLAVES ARE RECOGNIZED AS " PROP- 
 ERTY " BY THE CONSTITUTION, 
 
 On the 6th of December, 1858, Mr. Douglas 
 spoke at New Orleans. The following quot- 
 ation from his speech is taken from the report 
 in the New Orleans Delia : 
 
 " I, in common with the Demooracy"of Illinois, accept 
 the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, in the Dred Scott case, as an authorita- 
 tive exposition of the Constitution. Whatever limita- 
 tions the Constitution, as expounded by the Courts, 
 impose on the authority of a Territorial Legislature, we 
 cheerfully recognize and respect in conformity with 
 tliat decision. Slaves are recognized as property, 
 and placed on an. equal footing with all other prop- 
 erty. Hence, the owner of Slaves— the same as the 
 otc'ner of any other species of jiroperiy — has a rigid, 
 to remove to a Territory and carry his properiy 
 with him,:" 
 
 HE REPEATS THAT SLAVES MAY BE TAKEN TO THE 
 TERRITORIES LIKE OTHER PROPERTY. 
 
 Some of the Douglas organs in the North 
 have undertaken to say that their champioU 
 never uttered the words quoted above from 
 his New Orleans speech. They will hardly 
 deny, however, that he repeated it even movi 
 
8 
 
 oifensively in the Senate, on tlie 2P,d of Feb- 
 ruary, 1859, in a debate -with Jeff. Davis, 
 when he said : 
 
 " I do not put Slavery on a different footing from 
 ether property. 1 recognize it as property under what 
 is understood' to be the decision of the Supreme Court. 
 I argue that the owner of slaves HAS THE SAJIE 
 KIGHT TO KEJIOYE TO THE TERRITORIES AND 
 CARRY HIS SLAVE PROPERTY WITH HIM AS 
 THE OWNER OP ANY OTHER SPECIES OP PROP- 
 ERTY, and hold the same, subject to such local la-.vs as 
 the Territorial Legislature may Constitutionally pass, 
 aad if any person shall feci aggrieved by such local 
 legislation, he may appeal to the Supreme Court to test 
 the validity of such laws. I recognize slave property 
 to be on ci'ii equality icith all other property, and ap- 
 ply the same rules to it. I will x\o\ apply one rule to 
 slave property and another to all other kind of proper- 
 ly,"— Congressional tftoi!/«,.lS5S-9, part i,pag6 125G. 
 
 And again : 
 
 " Slaves, acoonii'i pro that decision, being property, 
 stand on an equ 1 footing with all other property. 
 THERE IS JUST AS MUCH OBLIGATION ON THE 
 PART OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE TO 
 PROTECT SLAA'ES AS EVERY OTHER SPECIES 
 OF PROPERTY, AS THERE IS TO PROTECT HORS- 
 ES, CATTLE, DRY GOC'DS, LIQUORS, kc'^—Cong. 
 Globe, same vol., page 125S. 
 
 And again : 
 
 " Hence, under the Constitution, there is no power 
 to prevent a Southern man going into the Territories 
 with his slaves, more than a Northern man." — 3Ir. 
 Douglas' Memphis Speech, Nov. iQth, 1858, as pub- 
 lishedin the Avalanche. 
 
 tVHAT HE IS OBLIGED TO DO IN THE PREMISES. 
 
 In his letter replying to Judge Blaek's criti- 
 (.•isni on his, Haipei's Magazine articie, Mr. 
 Doijglus took pains to tell wliat he deemed all 
 persons obliged to do who hold that slavery 
 exists in the Territories by virtue of ihe Con- 
 stitution. He said : 
 
 " In that article, without assailing any one, or Impug- 
 ning any man's motive, I demonstrated, beyond the 
 possibility of cavil or dispute, if slavery exists in the 
 Territories by virtue of the Constitution, the conclusion 
 is inevitable and irresistible, THAT IT IS THE IM- 
 PERATIVE DUTY OF CONGRESS TO PASS ALL 
 LAWS NECESSARY FOR ITS PROTECTION; THAT 
 THERE IS AND CAN BE NO EXCEPTION TO THE 
 RULE, THAT A RIGIU' GUARANTEED BY THE 
 CONSTITUTION MUST BE PROTECTED BY LAAV 
 IN ALL CASES, WHERE LEGISLATION IS ESSEN- 
 TIAL TO ITS ENJOYMENT. That all who believe 
 that slavery exis's in. the Territories by virtiie of the 
 Constitution are bound by their consdence, and 
 oaths of fidelity to the Constitution to support a Con- 
 gressional slave code in the Territories ." 
 
 This direct and unequivocal statement of the 
 duty of those who believe that slavery exists 
 in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution, 
 narrows the whole controversy between Doug- 
 las and Breckinridge down to a quibble, ■ to 
 wit: Is the right to carry slave property into 
 the Territories, which Mr. Douglas concedes 
 in the extracts quoted above, equivalent to 
 the existence of slavery in the Territories by 
 virtue of the Constitution ? To use the brief 
 and concise phrase employed by Mr. Lincoln 
 in his Columbus speech, "can a thing be law- 
 fully driven away from a place where it has a 
 Jawful right to be V" Which faction cf the 
 Democracy has the advantage of logic and 
 truthfulness in this controversy ? 
 
 HE DROPS "popular SOVEREIOKTY " 
 ALTOGETHER. 
 
 Mr. Douglas has so frequently re-endorsed 
 the Dred Scott decision that it is hardly worth 
 while to notice his subsequent remarks on 
 that theme. Let it be observed, however, 
 that after the Illinois election of 1858, Mr. 
 Douglas ceased talking about the right of 
 Territorial Legislatures to exclude slavery, but 
 commenced on an entirely new theme, to-wit: 
 " the right of the people to control slavery as 
 property.'" On the 2'2d of June, 1859, Mr. 
 Douglas wrote the following letter to J. B. 
 Dorr, Esq. the editor of the Dubuque Herald, 
 which was immediately telegraphed all over 
 the country, as' the ground-work of panciples 
 OH which he would be willing to accept the 
 nomination of the Charleston Convention: 
 
 " Washington, June 22d, 1859. 
 
 " My Dkar Sir : — I have received your letter inquir- 
 ing whether my friends are at liberty to present ray 
 name to the Charlestou Convention for the Presidential 
 nomination. 
 
 "Bef<ire this question can finally be detei-mined, it 
 will be necessary to understand distinctly upon what 
 issues the canvass is to be conducted. If, as I have full 
 faith they will, the Democratic party shall determine in 
 the Presidential election of 186() to adhei-e to the prin- 
 ciples embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850, 
 and r.atified by the people in the Presidential election 
 of 1852, and re-afSrmed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act 
 of 18.54, and incorporated into the Cincinnati platform 
 in 1856, as expounded by Mr. Buchanan in his letter 
 accepting the nomination, and approved by the people 
 in his election,— in that event my friends will he at 
 liberty to present my name to the Convention if they see 
 proper to do so. If, on the contrary, it shall become 
 the policy of the Democratic party, which I cannot anti- 
 cipate, to repudiate these, their time-honored principles, 
 on which we have achieved so many patriotic triumphs, 
 and in lieu of them the Convention shall interpolate into 
 the creed of the party such new issues as revival of the 
 African slave trade, or a Congressional slave code for 
 the territories, or the doctrine that the Constitution of 
 the United States ever established or prohibited slavery 
 in the territories, beyond the power of the people 
 legally to control it as p)roperty,—\i is due to candor 
 to say, that in such an event 1 coiild not accept the 
 nomination if tendered to me. Tnisting that this an- 
 swer will be deemed sufficiently explicit, I am, very 
 respectfullyj 
 
 "Your friend, S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 "J. B. PoRR, Esq., Dubuqiie, Iowa." 
 
 Probably the best exposition which has 
 been made of this ne^v dogma, is found in Mk. 
 Lincoln's, speech delivered at Columbus, Ohio, 
 in September, 1859, where he noticed the 
 change in Mr. Douglas' tone as follows : 
 
 "What he says now is something diOferent in lan- 
 guage, and we will consider whether it is not dilTerent.in 
 sense too. It? is now that the Dred Scott decision, or 
 rather the Constitution under that decision, does Hot 
 carry slavery iuto the Territories beyond the power of 
 the people of the Territories to control it as otherprop- 
 trty. He does not say that people can drive it out, but 
 they can control it as other property. The language 
 is different: we should consider whether the sense is 
 different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a 
 proposition to be mistaken about : it is putting him on the 
 other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclu- 
 sion of him from the lot if you v>'ere to kill him and let 
 tlie worms devour him ; but neither of these things is« 
 the same as ' controlling him as other property.' That 
 would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to 
 use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him 
 ' as other property; ' but please you, what do the men 
 who are in favor of slavery, want more than this? 
 Wh.at do they really want, other than that slavery, being 
 in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property ? " 
 
BE GOES FOR SUPREME COURT SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 In liis speech of February 23d, 1859, al- 
 ready referred to, Mr. Douglas again declared 
 himself ready to follow the Supreme Court to 
 the crushing out of Popular Sovereignty. 
 He 8aid : 
 
 " When the Supreme Court shall decide upon the 
 cnnstitutionality of the local [Tt-rvitovial] laws, I AM 
 PREPARED TO ABIDE BY THE DECISION WHAT- 
 EVER IT MAY BE, AND HAVE IT EXECUTED IN 
 GOOD FAITH AS WELL AS IN OTHER CASES."— 
 Congressional Olohe, 1S58-59, part 2, page 1259. 
 
 And again, in his speech of May 16th, 18G0J 
 having read the Tennessee Compromise reso- 
 lution offered at the Charleston Convention, 
 which was as follows : 
 
 " That all citizens of the United States have an eqital 
 i-i^ht to settle with their property in the Territories, and 
 that under the decision of the Szipreme, Court which 
 we recognize as an exposition of the Constitution, 
 neither their rights of person or property can be de- 
 stroyed or impairid by Con^i'esaional or Territorial leg- 
 islation," 
 
 — he proceeded to remark: 
 
 " The second proposition is, that a right of person or 
 property,. secured by the Constitution, cannot be taken 
 iivfuy by act of Congress or of the Territorial Legisla- 
 ture. Who ever dreamed that either Congress or a 
 Territorial Legislature, or any other legislative body on 
 earth could destroy or impair any right guaranteed 
 or secured by the Constitution? No man that I know 
 of." — Appendix to ihe Congresffional Globe, ISoS-CO, 
 page 31(3. 
 
 HE TELLS HOW TO CARRY OUT SUPREME COURT 
 SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 In the same speech, (May 16th, I860,) he 
 tells how to carry out Supreme Court Sover- 
 eignty, as follows: 
 
 " When that case shall arise, and the Court shall 
 pronounce its judgment, it will be binding on me, on 
 you, sir, and on every good citizen. It must be carried 
 out in good faith; AND ALL THE POWER OP THIS 
 GOVERNMENT— THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND 
 THE MIiJTIA— ALL THAT WE HAVE— MUST BE 
 EXERTED TO CARRY THE DECISION INTO EF- 
 FECT IN GOOD FAITH, IP THERE BE RESIST- 
 ANCE." — j^l/zpf^idja) to the Congressional Globe, 
 1S59-60, page 311. 
 
 HE IS UTTERLY OPPOSED TO "SQUATTER SOV- 
 EREIGNTY." 
 
 In a -colloquy with Senators Davis and 
 Gwin, in the Senate, on the 17th of May, I860,. 
 Mr. Douglas utterly repudiated " squattvr sov- 
 ereignty," in the following words: 
 
 "Regarding Squatter Sovereignty as a nickname 
 invented by tlie Senator and those with whom he acts, 
 which I have never recognized, I must leave him to de- 
 fine the meaning of his own term. I have denounced 
 Squatter Sovereignty when you find it setting up a 
 government in violation of law, as you do now at Pike's 
 Peak. I denounced it this year. When you find an 
 unauthorized Legislature, in violation of law, setting 
 up a government without sanction of Congress or Court, 
 that is Squatter Sovereignty which I oppose. There 
 ia the case of Dakotah, where you have left a 
 ■whole people without any law or Territorial organiza- 
 tion, with no mode of appeal from Squatter Courts to 
 the United States Courts to correct their decisions — 
 that is Squatter Sovereignty in violation of the Consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States. There is a simi- 
 lar government set up over a part of California and a 
 part of the Territory of Utah, cal'ed Nevada. 
 
 " It has a' delegate here, claiming to represent it. I 
 have denounced that as unlawful. I am opposed to all 
 
 such Squatter Sovereignty. If that i.? whit the Sena- 
 tor referred to, I am against it. All I say is, the peo- 
 ple of a Territory, when they have become organized 
 under the Constitution and laws, have legislative power 
 over all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with 
 the Constitution of the United States. That is the lan- 
 guage of the law, and if they exercise legislative powers 
 on any subject inconsistent with the Constitution of the 
 United States, the Courts, to whom appeal may betaken 
 under the laws, will correct their errors. That is all. 
 —Cong. Globe, 1S59-60; page, 214T. 
 
 HE REPUDIATES TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, ALSO. 
 
 The following extract from Mr. Douglas' 
 letter in reply to Judge Black's criticism on 
 his Harper's Magazine Essay, puts everyt'ning 
 at sixes and sevens again as regards his views 
 of the sovereignty which belongs to the people 
 of a Territory. In that letter he says: 
 
 " I have never said or thought that our Territories 
 were sovereign political comruunities, or even limited 
 sovereignties like the States of tliis Union." 
 
 And again, in a colloquy with Mr. Clay, of 
 Alabama, in the Senate, February 23d, 1859, 
 he was still more explicit in denying sover- 
 eignty to the Territories : 
 
 " I will answer the Senator's question. First — I do 
 not hold that squatter sovereignty is supei-inr to the 
 Constitution. 1 HOLD THAT NO SUCH THING AS 
 SOVEREIGN POWER ATTACHES TO A TERRI- 
 TORY WHILE A TERRITORY. I hold that a Terri- 
 tory possesses whatever power it derives from the Con- 
 stitution, uniier the organic act, and no more. I hold 
 that ALL the power that a Territorial Legislature posses- 
 ses is derived from the Constitution and its amendments, 
 wilder theact of Congress; and because I held that, I 
 denied last year that the people of a Territory, iDithout 
 the consent oj Congress, could assemble at Lecompton 
 and create an organic law for that people. I denied the 
 validity of your Lecompton Constitution, for the reason 
 that constitutions can only be made by sovereign power; 
 and because the Territory was not a sovereignty, that 
 was not a constitution but a petition." — Cong. Globe, 
 1S5S-59, part 2, page 1246. 
 
 It will be noticed, also, thnt in tht?se re- 
 marks, Mr. Douglas supplied a link hitherto 
 missing in the chain which binds him to the 
 Dred Scott decision. It is this : the Supreme 
 Court say -that whereas Congress cannot pro- 
 hibit slavery in the Territory, it cannot dele- 
 gate such power to a Territorial Legislature. 
 Mr. Douglas steps in at this point and says 
 that ALL the powers vested in a Territory are 
 derived through the act of Congress organiz- 
 ing it. They have no powers that are not so 
 derived. Hence if Congress cannot prohibit 
 slavery in a Territory, neither can the people 
 of the Territory do so by any means whatever. 
 
 A QUESTION WHICH HE WILL NOT ANSWER. 
 
 In his colloquy with Mr. Davis, in the Sen- 
 ate, May 17th, 1800, Mr. Douglus refused to 
 answer the question whether he would or 
 would not sign a bill to protect slave proper- 
 ty in the Territories, if he were President of 
 the United States. This is a question wliich 
 has an immediate and special significance, 
 an4 one which each voter has a right to put to 
 Mr. Douglas and every other candidate for 
 President or Vice-President. Fortunately we 
 have Mr. Douglas' reply, or his refusal to 
 reply on record. The colloquy was as follows: 
 
 " Mr. Davis — If it will not einbarass the Senator, I 
 would ask him, if, as Chief Executive of the United 
 
10 
 
 states, he would sign a bill to protect slave property in 
 State, Territory or District of Columbia — an act of Con- 
 ^■es3. 
 
 " Mr. Douglas — It will be time enough for me or any 
 other man to say what bills he will sign when he is in a 
 position to execute the power. 
 
 "Mr. Davis — I shall not ask you a question further 
 than you wish to answer — certainly not. 
 f Mr. Douglas — The Senator can ask all the questions 
 he pleases, and I shall answer them when I please ; but 
 I was going to say that I do not recognize the right to 
 catechise me in this way. The Senator has no right to 
 do it after sneering at my pretensions to tlie place which 
 he assumes that I desire to occupy. 
 
 " Mr. Davis — I grant the Senator the right not to an- 
 swer the question, though it seemed to me to be leading 
 very directlj' uj) to an exact understanding between us 
 as to what he meant by non-intervention. I, however, 
 will not press that, or any other question, against his 
 wishes."— Cong. Globe, 1S59-60; page, 2147. 
 
 HB GOES DIRECTLY FOR SUPREME COURT SOVER- 
 EIGNTY AND A TERRITORIAL SLATE CODE. 
 
 On the 23d of June, 1860, the Douglas wing 
 of the National Democratic Convention, at 
 Baltimore, finished up its business by adopting 
 the following resolution as a part of its plat- 
 form, — the resolution having been offered by 
 Mr. Wiekliffe, of Louisiana, who declared that 
 its adoption would give Mr. Douglas 40,000 
 votes in that State : 
 
 " RAwlved, That it is in accordance with the Cin- 
 cinnati jilatform, that during the existencftof Territorial 
 Q-ovei-nments, the measure of restriction, whatever it 
 may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the 
 power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of 
 the domestic relations, (m the same has heen or nhdll 
 hereafter be decided by the Supreme Court of the 
 Zfnit'ed JSicites, should be respected by all good citizens, 
 and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every 
 branch of the General Government." 
 
 In his letter accepting the nomination, Mr. 
 Douglas gave his particular 'attention to the 
 Wiekliffe slave-code resolution, remarking 
 upon it as follows : 
 
 " Upon a careful examination of the platform of 
 principles adopted at Charleston, and re-affirmed at 
 Baltimore, with an additional resolution which is in 
 perfect harmony with the others, I find it to be a faith- 
 ful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the 
 Democratic party, as the same were proclaimed and 
 understood by all parties in the Presidential contests 
 of 1S48, 1852 and 1850." 
 
 Thus has squatter sovereignty at last been 
 completely squatted out ! 
 
 HE ENDEAVORS TO BRING KANSAS INTO THE UNION 
 WITHOUT HAVING HER CONSTITUTION SUB- 
 MITTED TO THE PEOPLE. 
 
 On the 25th of June, 1856, while the bill 
 for the admission of Kansas was pending in 
 the Senate, Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, intro- 
 duced an amendment, which was ordered to 
 be printed, and, with the original bill and 
 other amendments, recommitted to the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas 
 was Chairman. This amendment of Mr. 
 Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, pro- 
 vided for the appointment of commissioners 
 who were to take a census of Kansas, divide 
 the Territory into election districts, and su- 
 perintend the election of delegates to form a 
 Constitution, and contains a clause in the 18th 
 section requiring, the Constitution which should 
 
 be formed to be submitted to the people for 
 adoption, as follows : 
 
 " That the following propositions be and the same 
 are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people 
 of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceiitance or 
 rejection, which, if accepted by the Convention, and 
 
 RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE ELECTION FOR THE ADOP- 
 TION' OF THE coNSTiTnTioN, Shall be obligatory on the 
 United States, and upon the said State of Kansas, 
 etc." 
 
 This amendment of Mr. Toombs was re- 
 ferred to the committee of which Mr. Douglas 
 was Chairman, and reported back by him on 
 the oOth of June, with the words " And rati- 
 fied by the people at the election for the adop- 
 tion of tlic Constitution" slru-koi out. On 
 the 9th of December, 1857, Senator Bigler 
 explained how the submission clause came to 
 be stricken out, as follows: 
 
 . " I was present when that subject was discussed by 
 Senators, before the bill was introduced, and the ques- 
 tion was raised and discussed whether the ('onstitution, 
 when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the peo- 
 ple. It was held by the most intelligent on the sub- 
 ject, that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that 
 Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of 
 a popular vote, it would be better that there should 
 BB NO SUCH provision IN THE TOOMBS' BILL ; and it is my 
 understanding in all the intercourse I had, that that 
 Convention would make a Constitution and send it here 
 
 without SUBMITTING IT TO THE POPULAR VOTE." — Coug. 
 
 Globe, parti, lSbl-S,paffen. 
 
 Referring to same subject again on the 21st 
 of December, 1857, Mr. Bigler continued: 
 
 " Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude 
 to any social or confidential interview. The meeting 
 was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-ofiicial, 
 and called to promote the public good. Jly recollection 
 was clear that I left the conference under the im- 
 pression that it had been deemed best to adopt measures 
 to admit Kansas as a State through the agency of one 
 popular election, and that for delegates to the Conven- 
 tion. This impression was the stronger, because I 
 thought the spirit of the bill infringed upon the doc- 
 trine of non-intervention, t6 which I had great aver- 
 sion ; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, 
 and as no movement had been made in that direction 
 in ihe Territory, I waived this objection, and concluded 
 to support the measure. I have a few items of testimony 
 as to the correctness of these impressions, and with their 
 submission I shall be content. I have before me the 
 bill reported by the Senator from Illinois, on the Tth of 
 March, 1S56, providing for the admission of Kansas 
 as a Slate, the third section of wliich reads as follows : 
 
 "' That the following propositions be, and the same 
 are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people 
 of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or 
 rejection : which, if accepted by the Conventton aiid 
 ratified by the people at the election for the adoption 
 of ihe Coniitituiion, shall be obligatory upon the 
 United States, and iipon the said State of Kansas.' 
 
 " The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, 
 on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on 
 Territories, contained the same section, word for word. 
 Both these bills were under consideration at the confer- 
 ence refen-ed to, but, sir, when the Senator from Illi- 
 nois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amend- 
 ments, the next morning, it did not contain that portion 
 of the third section which indicated to the Convention 
 that the Constitution should be approved by the people. 
 The words ' and ratified by the people at the election 
 for the adoption of the Constitution,' had been stricken 
 owt.'"— Congressional Globe, part 1, 1857-58, pages 
 lis and 114. 
 
 Better testimony, however, is that of Toombs 
 himself, delivered in the Senate on the 18th 
 of March, 1857, as follows : 
 
 "The first twelve sections provided the machinery 
 for executing the (Toombs) bill, so that there should be 
 no dispute as to its fairness. 
 
 " The othersections, containing only the formal parts 
 of the bill, incident to every enabling act, I cut ofif 
 
11 
 
 with my scissnrs, from a printed bill before me. The 
 first twelve sections are in mj' own writing. In the 
 thirteenth section, unrler the usual clause, stating that 
 the following shall be tliefunrlamental conditions of ad- 
 mission, THERK WERE WORDS REQUIRING A SUB- 
 MISSION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE PEO- 
 PLE. That I did not observe. 
 
 " When the bill came up for consideration between 
 some gentlemen of the Committee and myself, there be- 
 ing no provision in the bill for a second election ; there 
 being no safeguards for such a popular election ; the 
 bill being incongruous as to that purpose, I suggested 
 the striking out of this clause. It was done as the re- 
 port shows. It having got there by accident, it was 
 stricken out at my suggestion, as a matter of course. 
 The pri'iciples upon which that measure was based, 
 were these : — First, that all the legal voters of the Ter- 
 ritory should have a fair opportunity, free from force 
 or fraud, to elect a Convention, and to make a Consti- 
 tution ; ANn THEN THAT THKY SHOULD COME 
 INTO THE UNION, UNDER THAT CONSTITUTION, 
 WITHOUT REFERRING EITHER THE CONSTITU- 
 TION TO THE PEOPLE, OR THE QUESTION OF 
 ADMISSION AGAIN TO CONGRESS. It was intend- 
 ed as an assent to admission, in advance." — A]>pn- 
 dix to the Congressional Globe, 1S57-5S, page 127. 
 
 Best of all, however, is the testimony of Mr. 
 Douglas, given in the Senate, on the 9tll of 
 December, 185*7, as follows: 
 
 " During the last Congress I reported a bill from the 
 Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of 
 Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for them- 
 selves. Subsequently the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
 Toombs) brought forward a substitute for my bill, which 
 after having been modified by him and myself in con- 
 sultation, was passed by the Senate." — Cong. Globe, 
 part 1, 1S57-5S, page i5. 
 
 Bigler and Toombs having avowed their 
 complicity in the swindle, Mr. Douglas thus 
 makes haste to admit his share in it, by say- 
 ing that it was modified " by himself and 
 Toombs in consultation." What was the mod- 
 ification ? Simply this: that Mr. Douglas 
 reported the bill back, not only with the sub- 
 mission clause stricken out, but with a new 
 clause inserted, which reads as follows : 
 
 " AND UNTIL THE COMPLETE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, 
 
 NO OTHER ELECTION SHALL BE HELD IN SAID 
 TERRITORY." 
 
 Can any one fail to comprehend this clear 
 and logical chain of evidence ? At the time 
 when Douglas and Toombs were at work on 
 their precious conspiracy, Kansas was in the 
 hands of the Border Ruffians, and entirely at 
 their mercy. The Territorial office holders 
 were nearly all assassins and outlaws. The 
 Federal troops were either assisting or con- 
 niving at the Missouri invasion. Under these 
 circumstances is there any doubt za/iai kind of 
 a Constitution would have been made by the 
 Buford-Atchison gang who were then ravaging 
 Kansas, when they understood perfectly that 
 their act would be conclusive of the destinies 
 of the Territory, and when Douglas had espec- 
 ially provided that " until the complete exe- 
 cution of the act, no other election shall beheld 
 in the Territory .?" 
 
 HE DEFENDS THE BORDER RUFFIANS OF MISSOURL 
 
 In his report of March 12th, 1836, already 
 referred to, Mr. Douglas defended the Border 
 Ruffian invaders of Kansas, as follows : 
 
 " The natural consequence was that immediate steps 
 were taken by the people of the western counties of 
 Missouri to stimulate, organize and carry into elfect a 
 system of emigration, similar to that of the Massachu- 
 
 setts Emigrant Aid Company, for the avowed purpose 
 of counteracting the effects and protecting themselves 
 and their domestic institutions from the consequences of 
 that company's operations. The material difference in 
 the character of the two rival and conflicting movements 
 consists in the fact thai the one had itx origin in an 
 AGGRESSIVE and the other in a DEFENSIVE 
 policy." 
 
 HE DECLARES THE BOGUS LEGISLATURE OF KAN- 
 SAS TO HATE BEEN VALID. 
 
 In the same report, and on page 15 thereof, 
 Mr. Douglas asserted the validity of the bogus 
 legislature and its acts, as follows : 
 
 " So far as the question involves THE LEGALITY 
 OP THK KANSAS LEGISLATURE AND THE VALID- 
 ITY OP ITS ACTS, it is entirely immaterial whether 
 we adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the minority 
 or majority reports, for each proves that the LEGISLA- 
 TURE WAS LEGALLY AND DULY CONSTITUTED. 
 
 HE SAYS THE PEOPLE OP KANSAS MUST BE 
 " SUBDUED." 
 
 In the same report, and on page 40 thereof, 
 he advocates the subjection of the people of 
 Kansas, in the following words : 
 
 "In this connection, your Committee feel sincere sat- 
 isfaction in commending the messages and proclama- 
 tions of the President, in which we have the gratifying 
 assurance that the supremacy of the laws will be main- 
 tained; that rebellion will be crushed ; * * * that 
 the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all 
 attempts of organized resistence." 
 
 And again, in his speech of March 12th, 
 1856 : 
 
 " The minority report advocates foreign interference; 
 we advocate self-government and non-interference. 
 We are ready to meet the issue, and there will be no 
 dodging. We intend to meet it Boldly ; TO REQUIRE 
 SUBMISSION TO THE LAWS AND TO THE CON- 
 STITUTED AUTHORITIES; TO REDUCE TO SUB- 
 JECTION THOSE WHO RESIST TIIEM, AND TO 
 PUNISH REBELLION AND TREASON. I am glad 
 that a defiant spirit is exhibited here: we accept the 
 issue." — Congressional Globe, part 1, 1855-56, ^ag'e 
 639; • 
 
 HE THINKS SENATOR SUMNER SHOULD BE 
 " KICKED LIKE A DOG." 
 
 On the 20th day of May, 1856, Mr. Douglas 
 indidged in the following language, in reply 
 to Senator Sumner — the day on which he was 
 bludgeoned by Preston S. Brooks : 
 
 " It is his object to provoke some of us to KICK 
 HIM AS WE WOULD A DOG ! A hundred times has 
 he called the Nebraska Bill a swindle — an act of in- 
 famy, and each time went on to illustrate the complicity 
 of each man who voted for it, in perpetrating the 
 crime. * * * How dare he approach one of 
 these gentlemen, to give him his hand, after that act? 
 If he felt the courtesies between men, he would not do 
 it. He would deserve to have himself SPIT IN THE 
 FACE for doing so." — App>6ndixtothe Congressional 
 Globe, 1855-56, page 545. 
 
 HE VINDICATES DAVID E. ATCHISON. 
 
 In the same speech, and on the same day, 
 Mr. Douglas proceeded to vindicate David R. 
 Atchison, of Missouri, who was then leading 
 a company of Border Ruffians against Kansas, 
 in the following eulogistic terms : 
 
 " The Senator has also made an assault on IJ|£ late 
 President of the Senate — General Atchison — A gwitlb- 
 
 MAN OF AS KIND A NATURE, OF AS GENUINE AND TKUE A 
 
12 
 
 HEART AS EVER ANIMATED A HUMAN SOUL. He IS impul- 
 sive and g'cnerous, carrying his good qualities some- 
 times to an excess, wliicii induces him to say and do 
 many things that wmiUl not meet my approval ; but all 
 who know liim, know him to be A gkntlbman and an 
 HONEST MAN — true and loyal to -the Constitution of his 
 country." — Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 
 1855-^6, page 546. 
 
 HE THINKS SENATOR TRUMBULL IS A TRATOR, 
 AND THAT ALL TRAITORS SHOULD BE HUNG. 
 
 The following extract from Mr. Douglas' 
 speech on Kansas affairs, in the Senate, March 
 lOih, 185(5, is submitted without comment. 
 The langu^ige'is sufficiently direct for the com- 
 prehension of all fair-minded men : 
 
 " A word or two more on another point and I will 
 close My eolleac;ue has made an assault on the Presi- 
 dent of the United States for his etforts to vindicate the 
 supremacy of the laws, and put down insurrection and 
 rebellion in the Territory of Kansas. In my opinion, 
 the President of the United States is entitled to the 
 thanks of the whole country for the ijromjitness and 
 energy with which he has met the crisis. It was his im- 
 perative duty to maintain the supremacy of the laws, 
 and see that they ai-e faithfully executed. It was his 
 duty to suppress rebellion and put down treason. Jly 
 colleague says that it will be necessary to catch the trai- 
 tor before the President can hang him. My opinion is 
 that, from the signs of the times, and in view of all that 
 is passing around us, as well as at a distance, there will 
 be very little difficulty in arresting the traitors — and 
 that, too, WITHOUT GOING ALL THE WAY TO 
 KANSAS TO FIND THEM! [Laughter.] Tliis gov- 
 ernment has shown itself the most powerful of any on 
 earth in all respects, except one. It has shown itself 
 equal to foreign war or to domestic defence ; equal tp 
 any emergency that may arise in the exercise of its high 
 functions in all things EXCEPT THE POWER TO 
 HANG A TRAITOR! 
 
 I trust in God that the time is not near at hand, and 
 that it may never come, when it will be the imperative 
 duty of those charged with the faithful execution of the 
 laws, to exercise that power. I trust that calmer and 
 wiser counsels will prevail ; that passion may subside, 
 and reason and loyalty return, before the overt act shall 
 be committed. I fervently hope that the occasion may 
 never arise which shall render it necessary to test the 
 power of tlie Government and the firmness of the exec- 
 utive in this respect; but if, unfortunately-, that contin- 
 gency shall happen ; if treason against the United States 
 shall be consummated, far be it from my purpose to ex- 
 press the wish that the penalty of the law may not fall 
 ujion the traitor's head ! " — Appendix to the Congres- 
 sional Globe, 1855-56, page 288. 
 
 HE ENDORSES THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION IN 
 ADVANCE. 
 
 On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr. Douglas 
 made his " Grand Jury " speech, so-called, at 
 Springfield, to which one reference has already 
 been made. The following extracts from this 
 speech are taken from the phonographic report 
 pul:)lished in the Missouri Republican of June 
 18th, 1857. The famous Lecompton Conven- 
 tion had just been called by the bogus Legis- 
 lature, and on this topic he spoke as follows : 
 
 " Kansas is about to speak for herself through her 
 delegates assembled in convention to form a constitu- 
 tion, preparatory to her admission into the Union on an 
 equal footing with the original States. Peace and jjros- 
 perity now prevail throughout her borders. The law 
 under which her delegates are to be elected is believed 
 to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. If 
 any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice 
 of political leaders in distant States, shall choose to 
 absent themselves from the polls, and withhold their 
 votes, with a view of leaving the Free State Democrats 
 in a minority, and thus securing a pro-slavery constitu- 
 tion in opposition to a majority of the people living 
 und^' it, let the responsibility rest on those who, for 
 partmn purposes, will sacrifice the principles they pro- 
 fess to cherish and promote." 
 
 HE SATS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCS 
 WAS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE " ALL MEN." 
 
 In the same speech, Mr. Douglas ventilated 
 his views of the Declaration of Independence, 
 as follows ; 
 
 "The signers of the Declaration of Independence, 
 referred to white man, and to hirn alone, when they de- 
 clared that all men were created equal. They were in 
 a struggle with Great Britain. The princijjle they were 
 asserting was th^t a British subject bokn on American 
 
 SOIL, WAS EQUAL TO A BRITISH SUBJECT BORN IN ENGLAND 
 
 — that a British subject here, was entitled to all the 
 rights, privileges, and immunities, under the British 
 Constitution, that a British subjtct in England enjoyed ; 
 that their riglits were inalienable, and hence, that Par- 
 liament, whose power was omnipotent, had no power to 
 alienate them." 
 
 It appears thus, that in Mr. Douglas' opinion 
 not only the African race, but the German, 
 Italian, French, Scandinavian, and, indeed, 
 every nation except the English, Irish, Scotch 
 and American, are excluded from rdl part or 
 lot in the Declaration of Independence. The 
 phrase " all men," does not refer to them. 
 They huve no business with the Fourth of 
 July. It is to be observed that in this matter 
 Mr. Douglas has outrun the Dred Scott decis- 
 ion itself, which, after quoting the language 
 of the Declaration of Independence, says : 
 
 "The general words above quoted would seem to 
 embrace the whole human family, and if they were used 
 in a similar instrument at this day, would be so under- 
 stood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved 
 African race were not intended to be included, and 
 formed no part of the people who framed and adopted 
 this declaration." 
 
 HE SATS SLAVERT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 
 RULES OF, CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITT. 
 
 In the same speech Mr. Douglas gave utter- 
 ance to the following atrocious sentiments 
 on slavery in the abstract: » 
 
 " At that day the negro was looked upon as a being 
 of an inferior race. All history had proved that in no 
 part of the world, or the world's history, had the negro 
 ever shown himself capable of self-govtrnment, and it 
 was not the intention of the founders of this govern- 
 ment to violate that great law of God which made the 
 distinction between the white and the black man. Thai 
 distinction is pilain and palpable, and it has been 
 the rule of civilization and Christianity the ivorld 
 oner, tliat tohenever any man or set of men xuere in- 
 capable of taking care of thennselmes, they should 
 consent to he governed by those who are capable of 
 managing their affairs for them." 
 
 In revising the Missouri Republican\^ report 
 of this speech, for publication in the State 
 Register^ Mr. Douglas or some di'^creet friend 
 omitted th^s obnoxious paragraph. But. that 
 does not relieve him from the responsibility 
 of it, because we find the sime idea, in nearly 
 the same langu-ige, in his Chicago speech of 
 October 23d, 1850, as published in Sheahaii's 
 Life of Douglas, to-wit : 
 
 " The civilized world have always held that when 
 any race of men have shown themselves so degraded 
 byignorance, superstition, cruelty and barbarism as to 
 be utterly incapable of governing themselves, they 
 must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, 
 by such laws as are deemed aiiplicable to their condi- 
 tion." — [Shealian's Life of Douglas, page 184.] 
 
 ■This is popular sovereignty with a venge- 
 ance ! 
 
13 
 
 Hs don't care whether slavefvY is toted 
 
 DOWN OK TOTED CP. 
 
 It was with this epigrammatic phrase that 
 Mr. Dougliis signalized his objection to the 
 Lecompton Constitution on the 9th of Decem- 
 ber, 1857, when he spoke as follow.-^: 
 
 " But I am told on all sides ; ' oh ! just wait ; the 
 pro-slavery clause will be voted down.' That does not 
 obviate any of mj' objections; it does not diminish 
 any of them. You have no more right to force a Free 
 State Constitution onKansas tlian a Slave State Con- 
 Btitution. If Kansas wants a Slave State Constitution, 
 she has a right to it ; if she wants a Free State Con- 
 stitution, she has a right to it. It is none of my busi- 
 ness which way the slavery clause is decided. I CARE 
 NOT WHETHER IT IS VOTED DOWN OR VOTED 
 VP."—Cong. Globe, 1S5T-58, part 1, puffe IS. 
 
 HE URGES THAT SLAVERY SHOULD LAST FOREVER. 
 
 In hini joint debate with Mr. Lincoln, at 
 Quincy, Illinois, Mr. Douglas frankly coiifessed 
 that his " great principle " contemplated that 
 slavery should l-Ast for eve7\ He said : 
 
 " In this State we have declared that a negro shall 
 not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he 
 shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that 
 policy. Mi-'<K02iri has jimt as good a right to adopt 
 the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under 
 the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. 
 I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, 
 but let them settle that matter for themselves. 1 hold 
 that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized 
 men as well as ourselves ; that they bear consciences as 
 well as we, and that they are accountable to God and 
 their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, 
 therefore, the moral and religious right of the elavery 
 question for themselves within their own limits. I as- 
 sert that they had as much right under the Constitution 
 to adopt the system of policy which they have, as we 
 had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in 
 this Union. Let each State stand firnily by that great 
 Constitutional right, let each State mind its own busi- 
 ness and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no 
 trouble on this question. If we will stand by that 
 princii)le, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic 
 CAN EXIST FOREVER DIVIDED INTO FREE AND 
 !*LAVE STATES as our fathers made it and the people 
 of each Stats have decided." — [Lincoln and Douglas 
 Debates of 1S5S— page 209.] 
 
 HE SATS IF HE WERE A CITIZEN OF LOUISIANA 
 HE WOULD TOTE FOR THE PERPETUATION OF 
 SLAVERY. 
 
 In his Sedition law speech, in the Senate, 
 on the 23d of January, 1860, Mr. Douglas 
 went a step farther by asserting, roundly and 
 without qualification, that if he were a resi- 
 dent of a Southern State, he would vote to 
 retain and maintain slaYery. His language 
 was as follows : 
 
 " Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman will 
 adapt his laws to the wants, conditions and interests 
 of the people to be governed by them. SLAVERY 
 MAY BE VERY ESSENTIAL IN ONE CLIMATE 
 AND TOTALLY USELESS IN ANOTHER. IF I 
 WERE A CITIZEN OP LOUISIANA I WOULD 
 VOTE FOR RETAINING AND MAINTAINING 
 SLWERY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE GOOD OF 
 THAT PEOPLE WOULD REQUIRE IT.''— [Cong. 
 Globe, 1859-60, page 559. 
 
 HE THINKS SLAVERY IS A MERE QUESTION OP 
 DOLLARS AND CENTS. 
 
 Shortly after the Illinois election of 1858, 
 Mr. Douglas made a southern tour, stopping at 
 St. Louis, Memphis, and "New Orleans, and 
 addressing the people, at those places on polit- 
 
 ical topics. He spoke at Memphis, on the 
 29th of NoTember, and the following is an 
 extract from his speech as reported phouo- 
 graphically in the Memphis Avalanche : 
 
 " Whenever a Territory has a climate, soil and pro- 
 ductions making it the wierent of the inhabitants to 
 encourage slave property they will pass a slave code 
 and give it encouragement. Whenever the climate, soil 
 and productions preclude the possiljility of slavery be- 
 ing profitable, they will not permit it. Yon come right 
 
 BACK TO THE PRINCIPLE OF DOLLAKS AND CKNTS. I do 
 
 not care where the immigration in the soutliern country 
 comes from; — if old Joshua R. Giddings sliould raise a 
 colony in Ohio and settle down in Louisiana, he would 
 be the strongest advocate of Slavery in the whole South ; 
 he would find, when he got there, his opinion of slavery 
 would be very much modified ; he would find on those 
 sugar plantations that it was not a question between 
 the white man and the negro but between the negro and 
 the crocodile. He would say that between the negro 
 and the crocodile he took the side of the negro ; but 
 between the negro and the wliite man, he would go for 
 the white man." 
 
 Again, in his speech of February 29th, 
 1860, in the Senate, in the course of his as- 
 sault on Senator Seward, he said : 
 
 " We in Illinois tried Slavery while we were a Ter- 
 ritory, and found it was not profitable ; and hence we 
 turned philanthropists and abohshed \\.."- -Congres- 
 sional Globe, 1S59-60 ; page 915. 
 
 And again in the same discussion : 
 
 " But they, (the people of Illinois,) said 'experience 
 proves that it is not going to be profitable in this cli- 
 mate.' They had no scruples about it. Every one 
 of them was nursed by it. His father and his mother 
 held slaves. They had no scruple about Us being 
 right, but they said, 'we cannot make any money by it, 
 and as our State runs away off north, up to those eter- 
 nal snows, perhaps we shall gain population faster if 
 we stop Slavery and invite in the Northern population ;' 
 and as a matter of political policy. State policy, they 
 prohibited Slavery themselves." — Congressional Olohe 
 1S59-60 ; page 919. 
 
 HE SAYS THE ALMIGHTY HAS REQUIRED THE EX- 
 ISTENCE OF SLAVERY 1 
 
 In the Memphis speech, following immedi- 
 ately after the extract quoted above, from 
 the Avalanche, comes the following blasphe- 
 mous declaration : 
 
 "The Almighty has drawn the line on this continent 
 
 ON ONE SIDE OF WHICH THE SOIL MUST BE CULTIVATBD BY 
 
 SLAVE LABOR. That line did not run on thirty-six de- 
 grees and thirty minutes, for thirty-six degrees and 
 thirty minutes runs over mountains and through val- 
 leys. But this Slave line meanders in the sugar fields 
 and plantations of the South — [the remainder of the 
 sentence was lost by the confusion around the reporter.] 
 And the people living in the different localities and in 
 tlie Territories must determine for themselves whether 
 their ' middle bed ' is best adapted for slave or free la- 
 bor." 
 
 HE GOES FOR A SEDITION LAW. 
 
 On the 23d of January, 1860, Mr. Douglas 
 made his famous speech in favor of a new 
 Sedition Law, for the purpose of " suppres- 
 sing the irrepressible conflict-" Senator Ma- 
 son had already introduced a resolution for 
 the appointment of a select Committee to iit- 
 vestigate the John Brown raid at Harper's 
 Ferry, and to report whether any further leg- 
 islation was necessary in the premises. 
 Nevertheless, Mr. Douglas introduced the fol- 
 lowing additional resolution : 
 
 '■^Resolved, That the Committee of the Judiciary be in- 
 structed to report a bill for the protection of each State 
 
14 
 
 Territory of the Union against invasion bl the 
 orilies or inliabitanta of any other State or Terri- 
 
 and 
 
 author 
 
 tory ; anil for the suppression and punishment of con- 
 sp'racies or combinations in any State or Territory 
 with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, 
 inhabitants, iwoperty, or institutions of any other 
 State or Territory of the Union." 
 
 Upon this resolution he made a speech, on 
 the 23d of January, as aforesaid, from which 
 the following are consecutive extracts: 
 
 " The question, then, is, what legislation is necessary 
 and proper to render this guarantee of the Constitution 
 effectual? I presume there will be very little differ- 
 ence of opinion that it will be necessary to place the 
 whole military power of the Government at the disposal 
 of the President, under proper guards and restrictions 
 against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the 
 liostile force shall be actually in the field. Bat, fsir, 
 that is not fsifffi<^ient. Such legislation would not be 
 a full compliance with this guarantee of the Constitu- 
 tion. The framers of that instrument meant more when 
 they gave that guarantee. Mark the difference in lan- 
 guage between the provision for protecting the United 
 States against invasion and that for protecting the 
 States. When it provided for protecting the United 
 States, it said Congriss shall have power to " re- 
 pel invasion." AVhen it came to make this guarantee 
 to the States it changed the language and said the United 
 States shall ' protect ' each of the States against inva- 
 sion. 
 
 " Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use 
 the military power when the actual case of invasion 
 shall occur, but to authorize the judicial dejiartment of 
 the Government -to suppress all conspiracies and com- 
 binations in the several States with intent to invade a 
 State, or molest or disturb its government, its peace, 
 its citizL-ns, its property, or its institutions. You must 
 punish the conspiracy, the combination irith intent to 
 do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. 
 ****** * 
 
 " It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived 
 for such legislation. It is only necessary to inquire in- 
 ,to the causes which produced the Harper's Ferry out- 
 rage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in ac- 
 tive operation, and tjien you can determine whether 
 there is any ground for apprehension that the invasion 
 will be repeated. Without stopping to adduce evidence 
 in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm 
 and deliberate conviction that THE IIARI'ER'S FER 
 RY CRIME WAS THE NATURAL, LOGICAL, INEVI- 
 TABLE RESULT OF THE DOCTRINES AND TEACH- 
 INGS OF THE REPUBLICA.N PARTY, AS EXPLAIN- 
 ED AND ENFORCED IN THEIR PLATFORM, THEIR 
 PARTISAN PRESSES, THEIR PAMPHLETS AND 
 BOOKS, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE SPEECHES OF 
 THEIR LEADERS IN AND OUT OF CONGRESS. 
 ******* 
 
 " And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United 
 States confers upon Congress the power coupled with 
 the duty of protecting each State against external ag- 
 gression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of 
 suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State 
 against the institutions, property, people, or govern- 
 ment of every other State, 1 desire to carry out the 
 potcer vigorously . Sir, give us a law as the Consti- 
 tution contemplates and authorizes, and I will show 
 the Senator from New York that there is a constitu- 
 tional mode of repressing the "irrepressible conflict." 
 I will oj)en the prisoii door to allow connpiraiors 
 against the peace of the Ilepuhlio and the domestic 
 tranquility o/ our States to select their cells wherein 
 to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for 
 their crimes against the peace of society ! J ! 
 
 " Can any man say to us that although this outrage 
 has been perpetrated at Harper's Ferry, there is no 
 danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Republican 
 party still embodied, organized, confident of success, 
 and defiant in its pretensions? Does it not now hold 
 and proclaim the same creed that it did before the in- 
 vasion ? It is true that most of its representatives 
 here disavow the act of John Brown at Harper's Fer- 
 ry. I am glad that they do so ; I am rejoiced that they 
 have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to 
 them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, 
 unless they also repudiate and denovince the dictrines 
 and teachings which produced the act. Those doctrines 
 remain the same ; those teachings ai"e being poured 
 
 into the minds of men throughout the country by means 
 of speeches and pamphlets and books, and through 
 partizan presses. 
 
 "Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is 
 plain. This system of sectional warfare must cease. 
 The Constitution has given the power, and all we ask 
 of Congress is to give tha means, and we, BY INDICT- 
 MENT AND CONVICTIONS IN THE FEDERAL 
 COURTS OF OUR SbiVE^AL STATES, WILL MAKE 
 SUCH EXAMPLES OF THE LEADERS OF THESE 
 CONSPIRATORS AS WILL STRIKE TERROR INTO 
 THE HEARTS OF THE OTHERS, AND THERE 
 WILL BE AN END OF THIS CRUSADE."— Cwi^re*- 
 sional Globe, 1S59-C0, pages 552, 553. 
 
 The following is an extract from the old 
 Sedition Law of 1*793, which very nearly 
 revolutionized the cotflitry — utterly ruined 
 and destroyed the Fedeial party which took 
 the responsibility of enacting it — and aguinst 
 whnch Tiiomas Jefferson and his friends ful- 
 minated the famous " Resolutions of '98," 
 adopted by the Virginia and Kentucky Legis- 
 latures: 
 
 "■ Andbe it fiwiher enacted, "Rhat if any person 
 shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall caiise or 
 procure to be written, uttered or puJjiished, or shall 
 knowingly or willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, 
 uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and ma- 
 licious writing or T\Titings, against the Government of 
 the United States or either House of the Congress of 
 the Ui ited States, or the President of the United States, 
 with intent to defame the said Government, or either 
 House of the Congress, or the said President, or to 
 bring them, or either of them into contempt or dis- 
 repute, or to excite against them, or either or any 
 of them, the hatred of the good people of the United 
 States, or to stir up sedition within the United States ; 
 or to excite any uriawful combinations therein, for op- 
 posing or resisting any law of the United States, or any 
 act of the President of the United States, done in pur- 
 suance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested 
 by the Constitution of the United States ; then such 
 person being thereof convicted before any court of the 
 United States having jurisdiction therein, shall be pun- 
 ished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and 
 by imprisonment not exceeding two years." 
 
 The difference between this Sedition Law 
 and the one advocated by Mr. Douglas is, 
 that the former sought to punish the expres- 
 sion of opinions against the constituted au- 
 thorities of the United States, while the 
 latter seeks to punish the expression of opin- 
 ions against huiu'in slaverj'. Under Douglas' 
 proposed law, Washington, Jefferson, Frank- 
 lin, Madison, and nearly all the founders of 
 the Republic, would be liable, if still living, 
 to " indictments and convictions in our Fed- 
 eral courts." 
 
 THE UPSHOT OF JOHN liROWN S INVASION OP 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 This is a proper place to inquire what state 
 of fi\cti existed, calling for Mr. Douglas' furi- 
 ous onslaught on the people of the Konh, and 
 his malignant proposition to " open the prison 
 doors and allow conspirators against the tran- 
 quility of States to select cells wherein to drag 
 out a miserable life." The Select Committee 
 of the Senate, appointed to .investigate the 
 Harper's Ferry aliair, consisting of Messrs. 
 Mason, Davis, Fitch, Collamer and Doolittle, 
 commenced their labors on the 16th of De- 
 cember, 1859, and continued their sessions 
 until the 14lh of June, 1860. During this 
 time they examined thirty-two witnesses from 
 various parts of the country, and it is presum- 
 
15 
 
 cd tho}' arrived at the facts of the case a? 
 nearly as it was possible to rtaeh them. On 
 the 15th of June, the majority of the Commit- 
 tee miide a report in which they say : 
 
 " The Committee, after much consideration, are not 
 prepared to suggest any legislation which, in tlieir 
 opinion, would be adequate to prevent like occurrences 
 in the future. The only provisions in the Constitution 
 of the United States which would seem to imjjort any 
 authority in the Government of the United States to 
 interfere on occasions affecting the peace or safety of 
 the States are found in the 8lh section of thelst article, 
 amonest the jiowers of Congress, to provide for calling 
 for Militia to execute tha laws of the Union, suppress 
 insurrections and repel invasions; and in the 4th sec- 
 tion of the 4th article in the following words: 'The 
 United States shall guarantee to every State in this 
 Union a rejiubliean form of government, and sliall pro- 
 tect each of them against invasion, and on the applica- 
 tion of the legislature or of the executive (when the 
 legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic vio- 
 lence.' The 'invasion' here spol^en of would seem to 
 import an invasion by the public force of a foreign 
 power, or (if not so limited and equally referable to an 
 invasion of one State by another,) still it would seem 
 that public force, or force exercised umler the sanction 
 of aclcDOwledged political power, is there meant. 
 The invasion (to call it so) by Brown and his follow- 
 ers at Harper's Ferry was in no sense of that character. 
 IT W.\S SIMPLY THE ACT OF LAWLESS RUF- 
 FIANS UNDER THE SANCTION OP NO PUBLIC OR 
 POLITICAL POWER," ttn.— Report oj Select Com- 
 mittee of the Senate mi the Harper^s Ferry affair ; 
 page, 18. 
 
 This report is signed " J. M. Mason, Chair- 
 man, Jefferson Davis, G. N. Fitch." It ought 
 to be good authority on the question whether 
 any laws are required " to punish conspiracies 
 and combinations with inleid to do the act," 
 as also on the other question whether the Re- 
 publican party is responsible for John Brown's 
 raid. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS JUSTIFIES DISUNION. 
 
 In the Sedition Law speech, above referred 
 to, Mr. Douglas went so tar as to justify the 
 crime of disunion unless Congress should en- 
 act the sort of law which he there proposed. 
 As he is now charging disunion quite furious- 
 ly against the Breckinridge faction, it is pro- 
 per to show that less than one year ago he 
 was encouraging the same thing himself. He 
 said : 
 
 " If the people of this country shall settle down into 
 the conviction that there is no power in the Federal 
 Government to protect each, and every State from vio- 
 lence, from aggression, from invasion, THEY WILL 
 DEMAND THAT THE CORD BE SEVERED and the 
 weapons be restored to their hands with which they 
 may defend themselves. THIS INQUIRY INVOLVES 
 THE QUESTION OF THE PERPETUITY OP THE 
 UNION." — Congressio-nal Globe, 1859-60; page 551.. 
 
 JEFF. DAVIS REPUDIATES THE SEDITION LAW. 
 
 Two days after the Sedition law speech, 
 Senator Davis took the floor and repudiated 
 the whole thing as an alarming encroachment 
 on the rights of the people. He said : 
 
 "I welcome, sir, the apprehensions of the President 
 of the United States, and never would I enact a law 
 which would clothe the executive with the power to call 
 out the militia, to bring the army and the navy TO IN- 
 VADE A STATE TO DISCOVER WHO WITHIN 
 THAT STATE HAD IN HIS BREAST THE PURPOSK 
 AT SOME FUTURE DAY TO COMBIIT CRIME. If 
 there be unlawful, treasonable organizations within a 
 State, it belongs to the State sovereignty to inquire and 
 to punish the offender. ****** 
 
 It is proper for me, Mr. President, to say that it is in 
 no feeling of partisan warfare between me and the Lcn- 
 ator and the President, if any such exist, that I have 
 made the explanation. It is the deep interest 1 feel 
 for the preservation of sound principles and the restric- 
 tion of the Federal Government from striding over the 
 sovereignties of the States to usurp such centralizing 
 power, under the promptings of a momentary expedi- 
 ency, as would destroy the great charter of our llier- 
 tv, and reduce the people to that condition from which 
 tiiev rose— THE SUBJECTS OF A GOVERNMENT 
 NOT WITHIN THEIR CONTROL."— Co«^. Globe, 
 1859-60; i^e-^s 589, 590. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS TELLS WHAT " POPULAR SOVER- 
 EIGNTY " HAS DONE. 
 
 It will be admitted that Mr. Douglas is a 
 good judge of what his dogma of " Popular 
 Sovereignty " has accomplished during the 
 past six years. Therefore, we let him tell the . 
 result in his own words, quoting from his 
 speech in the Senate on tlie Ifith of May, 
 1860, as printed in the Appendix to the C'j7t- 
 gresHio7ial Globe : 
 
 "But we are told that the necessary result of this 
 doctrine of non-intervention, which gentlemen, by way 
 of throwing ridicule upon, call squatter sovereignty, is. 
 to deprive the South of all participation in what they 
 call common Territories of the United States. That 
 was the ground on which the Senator from Mississippi 
 (Mr. Davis) predicated his opposition to the compromise 
 measures of 1850. He regarded a refusal to repeal the 
 Mexican law as equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso ; a . 
 refusal to recognize by an act of Congress the* right to 
 carry a slave there as equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso ; 
 a relusal to deny to a Territorial Legislature tlie right 
 to exclude slavery as equivalent to an exclusion. He 
 believed at that time that this doctrine did amount to 
 a denial of southern rights, and he told the peo])le of • 
 Mississipi)i so ; but they doubted it. Now, let us see 
 how far his predictions and suppositions have been 
 verified. I infer that he told the people so, for as he 
 makes a charge in his bill of indictment against me, 
 that I am hostile to Southern rights, because 1 gave 
 those votes. 
 
 " Now, what has been the result? My views were 
 incorpoi'ated into the compromise measures of 1850, 
 and his were rejected. Has the South been excluded 
 from all the territory acquired from Mexico? What 
 says the bill from the House of Representatives now on 
 your table, repealing the slave code in New Mexico, es- 
 tablished by the people themselves? It is part of the 
 history of the country, that under the doctrine of non- 
 intervention, this doctrine that you delight to call 
 squatter sovereignty, the people of New Jlexico have 
 introduced and protected slavery in the whole of that 
 Territory. UNDER THIS DOCTRINE THKY HAVE 
 CONVERTED A TRACT OF FREE TERRITORY INTO 
 SLAVE TERRITORY, MORE THAN FIVE TIMES 
 THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. UN- 
 DER THIS DOCTRINE, SLAVERY HAS BEEN EX- 
 TENDED FROM THE RIO GRANDE TO THE GULP • 
 OF CALIFORNIA, AND FROM THE LINE OP THE 
 REPUBLIC OF MEXICO, NOT ONLY UP TO 36 deg. , 
 •30 min.,BUT UP TO 38 deg. GIVING YOU A DE- 
 GREE AND A HALF MORE SLAVE TERRITORY 
 THAN YOU EVER CLAIMED. In 1848 and 1843 and . 
 1850, you only asked to have the line of 36 deg. 30 min. 
 The Nashville Convention fixed that as its ultimatum. 
 I offered it in the Senate, in August, 1848, and it was 
 adopted here, but rejected in the House of Representa- 
 tives. You asked only up to 86 deg. 30 min., and 
 
 NON-INTERVENTION HAS GIVEN TOU SLAVE TERKITORT UP * 
 
 TO 38 deg.— A DEGREE AND A HALF MORE THAN 
 YOU ASKED ; and yet you say that this is a sacrifice 
 of Southern rights? 
 
 " These are the fruits of this princijile which the 
 Senator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the rights 
 of the South. Where did you ever get any other fruits 
 tliat were more palatable to your taste or refreshing to 
 your strength ? What other inch of free territory has 
 been converted into slave territory on the American 
 continent, since the Revolution, except in New Mexico 
 and Arizona, under the principle of non-intervention 
 affirmed at Charleston. If it be true tliat this princi- 
 
16 
 
 p!e of non-intervention has conferred upon you all t^at 
 immense territory ; has protected slavery in that cma- 
 paratively northern and cold region, where you did not 
 expect it to go, cannot j'ou trust tlie same princi|)le fur- 
 ther South when you come to acquire additional terri- 
 tory from Mexico ? If it be true that this principle of 
 non-intervention, has given to slavery, all of New 
 Mexico, which was surrounnded on nearly every side 
 by free territory, will not the same principle protect 
 you in the northern States of Mexico, when tliey are ac- 
 quired, since they are now surrounded by slave terri- 
 tory ; are seveial hundred miles further south ; have 
 many degree? of greater lieat ; and have a climate and 
 , soil adapted to soutliern products ? Are you not sat- 
 isfied with these practical re--ults?" — Appendix to 
 Cong. Globe, 1S59-60, page 314. 
 
 HIS LAST FLING AT Tlli: PEOPLE OF KANSAS. 
 
 The Hon. John Hickman, in his Lite speech 
 in Conceit Hall, Philadelphia, after a scathing 
 review of Mr. Douglas' many crimes iigainst 
 freedom in Kansas,' says: " It :_ giatifying, 
 however, to make a single rf'jiark in Itis fa- 
 vor ; it is this: tliat he seems as willing as 
 the most ardent of his friends to divert atten- 
 tion from this period of his career. I am not 
 
 aware that, in either essay or address he has 
 ventured to recur to it ; but on the contrary, 
 he seems disposed to treat as a blink in his 
 life." Mr. Hickman has overlooked Mr. 
 Douglas' speech in the Senate on the 29th of 
 February last, when he repeated the most of- 
 fensive and disreputable thing he ever said 
 concerning the civil war in that Territory, 
 It was this : 
 
 " Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down 
 by unholy coml)ination in New England to ship men to 
 Kansas — rowdies and vagabonds — with the Bible in 
 one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, TO SHOOT 
 DOWN THK PRIENDS Oh' FREE INSTITUTIONS 
 AND SELF GOVERNMENT. Popular sovereignty in 
 Kansas was stricken down by the combiuations in the 
 Northern States to carry elections under pretence of 
 emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed 
 aid societies, too ; and she, following your example, 
 sent men into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. 
 I condemn both, but I condemn A thocsano fold 
 MORE those that set the example and struck the first 
 blow than those who tliought they would act on the 
 principle oi fighting the decilwithhis own weapojt-s, 
 and resorted to the same means that you have em- 
 \}\oyed."—Oong. Globe, 1859-60, page 916. 
 
 PART III.— MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 . ^ UXFRIENDLT LEGISLATION. 
 
 The doctrine of " unfriendly legislation " 
 against the rights of property, as declared by 
 ' the Dred Scott decision, was promulgated by 
 •Mr. Douglas in his debate with Mr. Lincoln, 
 at Freeport, on the 23th of August, 1858, as 
 follows : 
 
 The next quesiion propounded to me l>y Blr. Lin- 
 coln is, can the people of a Territory in any lawful 
 way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United 
 States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the 
 formation of a Constitution? I answer emphatically, 
 as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times 
 from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the 
 the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude 
 slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a 
 State Constitution. Mr. Liccoln knew that I had an- 
 swered thjit question over and over again. He heard 
 rae argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over 
 the State in 1S54, in 1S55, and in 1856, and he has no 
 excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position 
 on that question. IT MATTERS NOT WHAT WAY 
 THK SUPREME COURT MA7 HEREAFTER DE- 
 CIDE AS TO THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHE- 
 THER IT MAY OR MAY NOT GO INTO A TERRI- 
 , TORY UXDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE 
 • HAVE THE LAWFUL MEAN-i TO INTRODUCE IT 
 OR EXCLUDE IT AS THEY PLEASE, for the reason 
 • that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, un- 
 less it is supported by police regulations. Those police 
 regulations can only be established by the local legis- 
 lature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they 
 will elect representatives to that body who will by 
 unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduc- 
 tion of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they 
 are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. 
 » Hence, NO MATTER WHAT THE DECISION OF 
 THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE on that abstract 
 question, still the right of the people to make a slave 
 Territory or a free 'J'erritory is perfect and complete 
 under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems 
 my answer satisfactory on that point." — Lincoln and 
 Douglas Debates, page 95. 
 
 Let the reader contrast these utterances 
 with the Wickliffe resolution, adopted by the 
 Douglas National Convention, and Mr. Doug- 
 las' letter of acceptance, (page 10, ante). 
 
 HE THINKS " congress" MUST DETERMINE Wn?:S 
 
 POPULAR SOTEREIGNTT SHALLBEGIN IN A 
 
 TERRITORY. 
 
 In his c.opyright essay published in Har- 
 per's Magazine last year, Mr. Douglas substan- 
 tially admits the Republican doctrine con- 
 cerning the relation of Congress to the 
 Territories, by saying: 
 
 "It, [sovereignty] can only be exercised WHERE 
 THERE ARE INHABITANTS SUFFICIENT TO CON- 
 STITUTE A GOVERNMENT, AND CAPABLE OP 
 PERFORMING ITS VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND 
 DUTIES— y1 fact to BE ASCERTAINED AND 
 DETERMINED BY CONGRESS. WHETHER 
 THE NUMBER SHALL BE FIXED AT TEN, FIF- 
 TEEN OR TWENTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS, 
 DOES NOT AFFECT THE PRINCIPLE." 
 
 If the' number may be fixed at ten, fifteen 
 or twenty thousand inhabitants, it may of 
 course be fixed at one hundred thousand or 
 any otlier number sufficient to consiitute a 
 
 State. 
 
 MR. DOUGLAS VIIWS OF NATIONAL PARTIES AND 
 NATION.^.L CREEDS. 
 
 Since Mr. Herschel V. Johnson has been 
 hooted down by a mob in his own State, and 
 since the creed of the Douglas party has been 
 tabooed in at least one-third of the States of 
 Union, it will be interesting to all persons to 
 learn the views of nationality entertained by 
 Mr. Douglas himself; and it is difiicultto find 
 a broader joke with which to conclude this 
 pleasing compilaiion. Wo close by quoting 
 fro.m his speech at Cincinnati, on the 9th of 
 September, 1859, as reported la the New York 
 7'imes of Sept. 12th: 
 
 "ANY POLITICAL CREED IS RADICALLY 
 WRONG WHICH CANNOT BE PROCLAIMED IN 
 THE SAME FORM WHEREVER THE AMERICAN 
 FLAG WAVES OR THE AMERICAN CONSTITU- 
 TION RULES." • 
 
 h ■4 
 
'^<^**'p.o''\-?,'^ %**»'^-*\0'^ V'*'«-o'\4'^ ^"""^ 
 
^J ^^^\ %y||N^*- /^'"^^ ^^^^p^,- '^' '^ ^-^^-^ ^ 
 
 »••'- ■'iJ WERT D r> ^ '^Q, C^ 
 
 " 1 l,n Fed 198? H ° ^