Territorial slavery question

Territorial slavery question http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbaapc.29200

Territorial slavery question

Territorial Slavery Question. OBSERVATIONS ON SENATOR DOUGLAS' VIEWS OF POPULARSOVEREIGNTY, AS EXPRESSED IN Harper's Magazine for September, 1859.

Every one knows that Mr. Douglas, the Senator from Illinois, has written and printed an elaborateessay, comprising thirty-eight columns of Harper's Magazine, in which he has undertaken to pointout the “dividing line between federal and local authority.” Very many persons have glanced over itsparagraphs to catch the leading ideas without loss of time, and some few have probably read it withcare.

Those who dissent from the doctrines of this paper owe to its author, if not to his arguments, a mostrespectful answer. Mr. Douglas is not the man to be treated with a disdainful silence. His ability isa fact unquestioned; his public career, in the face of many disadvantages, has been uncommonlysuccessful; and he has been for many years a working, struggling candidate for the Presidency. Heis, moreover, the Corypheus of his political sect—the founder of a new school—and his disciplesnaturally believe in the infallible verity of his words as a part of their faith.

The style of the article is, in some respects, highly commendable. It is entirely free from the vulgarclap-trap of the stump; has no vain adornment of classical scholarship; it shows no sign of theeloquent Senator; it is even without the logic of the great debater. Many portions of it are veryobscure. It seems to be an unsuccessful effort at legal precision; like the writing of a judge, who istrying in vain to give good reasons for a wrong decision on a question of law which he has not quitemastered.

With the help of Messrs. Seward and Lincoln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of theso called Republican party; and he does not attempt to conceal his conviction that their doctrinesare, in the last degree, dangerous. They are, most assuredly, full of evil and saturated with mischief.The “irrepressible conflict” which they speak of with so much pleasure between the “opposing andenduring forces” of the Northern and Southern States will be fatal, not merely to the peace of thecountry, but to the existence of the Government itself. Mr. Douglas knows this, and he knows, also,that the Democratic party is the only power which is, or can be, organized to resist the Republicanforces or oppose their hostile march upon the capital. He who divides and weakens the friends ofthe country at such a crisis in her fortunes, assumes a very grave responsibility.

Mr. Douglas separates the Democratic party into three classes, and describes them as follows:


“ First. Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibitsslavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but ‘leavesthe people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’

“ Second. Those who believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories, and withholdsfrom Congress and the Territorial Legislature the power to control it, and who insist that, in theevent the Territorial Legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it becomes theimperative duty of Congress to interpose its authority and furnish such protection.

“ Third. Those who, while professing to believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in theTerritories beyond the power of Congress or the Territorial Legislature to control it, at the same timeprotest against the duty of Congress to interfere for its protection; but insist that it is the duty of theJudiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territories without any law upon the subject.”

We give Mr Douglas the full benefit of his own statement. This is his mode of expressing thosedifferences, which, he says, disturb the harmony, 2 and threaten the integrity, of the Americandemocracy. These passages should, therefore, be most carefully considered.

The first class is the one to which he himself belongs, and to both the others he is equally opposed.He has no right to come between the second and third class. If the difference which he speaks ofdoes exist among his opponents, it is their business, not his, to settle it or fight it out. We shall,therefore, confine ourselves to the dispute between Mr. Douglas and his followers on the one hand,and the rest of the Democratic party on the other, presuming that he will be willing to observe theprinciple of non-intervention in all matters with which he has no concern.

We will invert the order in which he has discussed the subject, and endeavor to show—

1. That he has not correctly stated the doctrine held by his opponents; and,

2. That his own opinions, as given by himself, are altogether unsound.

1. He says that a certain portion of the Democratic party believe, or profess to believe, that theConstitution establishes slavery in the Territories, and insist that it is the duty of the Judiciary tomaintain it there without any law on the subject. We do not charge him with any intention to beunfair; but we assert that he has in fact done wrong to, probably, nineteen-twentieths of the party,by attempting to put them on grounds which they never chose for themselves.


The Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else. Nobodyin this country ever thought or said so. But the Constitution regards as sacred and inviolable all therights which a citizen may legally acquire in a State. If a man acquires property of any kind in a State,and goes with it into a Territory, he is not for that reason to be stripped of it. Our simple and plainproposition is, that the legal owner of a slave or other chattel may go with it into a Federal Territorywithout forfeiting his title.

Who denies the truth of this, and upon what ground can it be controverted? The reasons whichsupport it are very obvious and very conclusive. As a jurist and a statesman, Mr. Douglas ought to befamiliar with them, and there was a time when he was supposed to understand them very well. Wewill briefly give him a few of them.

1. It is an axiomatic principle of public law that a right of property, a private relation, condition, orstatus, lawfully existing in one State or country, is not changed by the mere removal of the partiesto another country, unless the law of that other country be in direct conflict with it. For instance: Amarriage legally solemnized in France is binding in America; children born in Germany are legitimatehere if they are legitimate there; and a merchant who buys goods in New York according to thelaws of that State may carry them to Illinois and hold them there under his contract. It is preciselyso with the status of a negro carried from one part of the United States to another; the questionof his freedom or servitude depends on the law of the place where he came from, and dependson that alone, if there be no conflicting law at the place to which he goes or is taken. The FederalConstitution, therefore, recognises slavery as a legal, condition wherever the local governmentshave chosen to let it stand unabolished, and regards it as illegal wherever the laws of the place haveforbidden it. A slave being property in Virginia, remains property; and his master has all the rights ofa Virginia master wherever he may go, so that he go not to any place where the local law comes inconflict with his right. It will not be pretended that the Constitution itself furnishes to the Territories aconflicting law. It contains no provision that can be tortured into any semblance of prohibition.

2. The dispute on the question whether slavery or freedom is local or general, is a mere war ofwords. The black race in this country is neither bond nor free by virtue of any general law. Thatportion of it which is free is free by virtue of some local regulation, and the slave owes service for asimilar reason. The Constitution and laws of the United States simply declare that everything donein the premises by the State governments is right, and they shall be protected in carrying it out.But free negroes and slaves may both find themselves outside of any State jurisdiction, and in aTerritory where no regulation has yet been made on the subject. There the Constitution is equallyimpartial. It neither frees the slave nor enslaves the freeman. It requires both to remain in statu quountil the status already impressed upon them by the law of their previous domicil, shall be changed


by some competent local authority. What is competent local authority in a Territory will be elsewhereconsidered.

3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards the rights of private property against the FederalGovernment itself, by declaring that it shall not be taken for public use without compensation,nor without due process of law. Slaves are private property, and every man who has taken anoath of fidelity to the Constitution is religiously, morally, and politically bound to regard them assuch. Does anybody suppose that a Constitution which acknowledges the sacredness of privateproperty so fully would wantonly destroy that right, not by any words that are found in it, but bymere implication from its general principles? It might as well be asserted that the general principlesof the Constitution gave Lane and Lane and Montgomery a license to steal horses in the valley of theOsage.

4. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the question. After solemn argument andcareful consideration, that august tribunal has announced its opinion to be that a slaveholder, bygoing into a Federal Territory, does not lose the title he had to his negro in the State from which hecame. In former times, a question of constitutional law once decided by the Supreme Court wasregarded as settled by all, except that little band of ribald infidels, who meet periodically at Bostonto blaspheme the religion and plot rebellion against the laws of the country. The leaders of the so-called Republican party have lately been treading close on the heels of their abolition brethren; butit is devoutly to be hoped that Mr. Douglas has no intention to follow their example. In case he iselected President, he must see the laws faithfully executed. Does he think he can keep that oath byfighting the judiciary?

5. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of former timesentertained the same opinion, and held it so firmly, that they did not even think of any other. It wasuniversally taken for granted that a slave remained a slave, and a freeman a freeman, in the newTerritories, until a change was made in their condition by some positive enactment. Nobody believedthat a slave might not have been taken to, and kept in the Northwest Territory, if the ordinance of1787 or some other regulation had not been made to prohibit it. The Missouri, restriction of 1820was imposed solely because it was understood (probably by every member of that Congress) that, inthe absence of a restriction, slave property would be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above36° 30′ as below; and all agreed that the 3 mere absence of a restriction did, in fact, make it lawfulbelow the compromise line.

6. It is right to learn wisdom from our enemies. The Republicans do not point to any expressprovision of the Constitution, nor to any general principle embraced in it, nor to any establishedrule of law, which sustains their views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of necessity


to hunt for arguments in a code unrevealed, unwritten, and undefined, which they put above theConstitution or the Bible, and call it “higher law” The ultra Abolitionists of New England do not denythat the Constitution is rightly interpreted by the Democrats, as not interfering against slavery in theTerritories; but they disdain to obey what they pronounce to be “an agreement with death, and acovenant with hell.”

7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when he proposed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill repealingthe Missouri restriction? Did he intend to tell Southern men that, notwithstanding the repeal ofthe prohibition, they were excluded from those Territories as much as ever? Or did he not regardthe right of a master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition? Did he, oranybody else at that time, dream that it was necessary to make a positive law in favor of the slaveholder before he could go there with safety? To ask these questions is to answer them. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was not meant as a delusion or a snare. It was well understood that the repeal aloneof the restriction against slavery would throw the country open to everything which the Constitutionrecognised as property.

We have thus given what we believe to be the opinions held by the great body of the democraticparty—namely, that the Federal Constitution does not establish slavery anywhere in the Union; thatit permits a black man to be either held in servitude or made free as the local law shall decide; andthat in a Territory where no local law on the subject has been enacted it keeps both the slave andthe free negro in the status already impressed upon them, until it shall be changed by competentlocal authority. We have seen that this is sustained by the reason of the thing, by a great principleof public law, by the words of the Constitution, by a solemn decision of the Supreme Court, by thewhole course of our legislation, by the concession of our political opponents, and, finally, by themost important act in the public life of Mr. Douglas himself.

Mr. Douglas imputes another absurdity to his opponents when he charges them with insisting “thatit is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territories without any law uponthe subject. ” The judge who acts without law acts against law; and surely no sentiment so atrociousas this was ever entertained by any portion of the Democratic party. The right of a master to theservices of his slave in a Territory is not against law, nor without law, but in full accordance with law.If the law be against it we are all against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska a legal right to theox team, which he bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains? Is not his title as good to it in theTerritory as it was in the State where he got it? And what should be said of a judge who tells him thathe is not protected, or that he is maintained, in the possession of his property “without any law uponthe subject?”


II. We had a right to expect from Mr. Douglas at least a clear and intelligible definition of hisown doctrine. We are disappointed. It is hardly possible to conceive anything more difficult tocomprehend. We will transcribe it again, and do what can be done to analyze it.

“Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibitsslavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but ‘leavesthe people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’”

The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories. If it be meant bythis that the Constitution does not, proprio vigore, either emancipate any man's slave or create thecondition of slavery and impose it on free negroes, but leaves the question of every black man'sstatus, in the Territories as well as in the States, to be determined by the local law, then we admit it,for it is the very same proposition which we have been trying to prove. But if, on the contrary, it isto be understood as an assertion that the Constitution does not permit a master to keep his slave,or a free negro to have his liberty, in all parts of the Union where the local law does not interfere toprevent it, then the error is not only a very grave one, but it is also absurd and self contradictory.

The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the powerof the people legally to control it. This is sailing to Point-No Point again. Of course a subject which islegally controlled cannot be beyond the power that controls it. But the question is, what constituteslegal control, and when the people of a State or Territory are in a condition to exercise it?

The Constitution of the United States * * * leaves the people perfectly free, * * * and subject only tothe Constitution of the United States. This carries us round a full circle, and drops us precisely at theplace of beginning. That the Constitution leaves everybody subject to the Constitution, is most true.We are far from denying it. We never heard it doubted, and expect we never will. But the statementof it proves nothing, defines nothing, and explains nothing. It merely darkens the subject, as wordswithout meaning always do.

But notwithstanding all this circuity of expression and consequent opaqueness of meaning in themagazine article of Mr. Douglas, we think we can guess what his opinions are or will be when hecomes to reconsider the subject. He will admit (at least he will not undertake to deny) that the statusof a negro, whether of servitude or freedom, accompanies him wherever he goes, and adheres tohim in every part of the Union until he meets some local law which changes it.

It will also be agreed that the people of a State, through their Legislature, and the people of aTerritory, in the constitution which they may frame preparatory to their admission as a State, can


regulate and control the condition of the subject black race within their respective jurisdictions, so asto make them bond or free.

But we here come to the point at which opinions diverge. Some insist that no citizen can be deprivedof his property in slaves, or in anything else, except by the provisions of a State Constitution or by theact of a State Legislature; while others contend that an unlimited control over private rights may beexercised by a Territorial Legislature as soon as the earliest settlements are made.

So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Douglas in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it be notestablished he threatens us with Mr. Seward's “irrepressible 4 conflict,” which shall end only with theuniversal abolition or the universal dominion of slavery. On the other hand, the President, the Judgesof the Supreme Court, nearly all the Democratic members of Congress, the whole of the party South,and a very large majority North, are penetrated with a conviction that no such power invested in aTerritorial Legislature, and that those who desire to confiscate private property of any kind must waituntil they get a Constitutional Convention or the machinery of a State government into their hands.We venture to give the following reasons for believing that Mr. Douglas is in error:

The Supreme Court has decided that a Territorial Legislature has not the power which he claimsfor it. That alone ought to be sufficient. There can be no law, order, or security for any man's rightsunless the judicial authority of the country be upheld. Mr. Douglas may do what he pleases withpolitical Conventions and party platforms, but we trust he will give to the Supreme Court at least thatdecent respect which none but the most ultra Republicans have yet withheld.

The right of property is sacred, and the first object of all human government is to make it secure.Life is always unsafe where property is not fully protected. This is the experience of every peopleon earth, ancient and modern. To secure private property was a principal object of Magna Charta.Charles I. afterwards attempted to violate it, but the people rose upon him, dragged him to theblock, and severed his head from his body. At a still later period monarch for a kindred offence wasdriven out of the country, and died a fugitive and an outcast. Our own Revolution was provoked bythat slight invasion upon the right of property which consisted in the exaction of a trifling tax. Thereis no government in the world, however absolute, which would not be disgraced and endangered bywantonly sacrificing private property even to a small extent. For centuries past such outrages haveceased to be committed in times of peace among civilized nations.

Slaves are regarded as property in the Southern States. The people of that section buy and sell,and carry on all their business, provide for their families, and make their wills and divide theirinheritances on that assumption. It is manifest to all who know them that no doubts ever cross theirwinds about the rightfulness of holding such property. They believe they have a direct warrant for


it, not only in the examples of the best men that ever lived, but in the precepts of Divine revelationitself; and they are thoroughly satisfied that the relation of master and slave is the only one whichcan possibly exist there between the white and the black race without ruining both. The people ofthe North may differ from their fellow-citizens of the South on the whole subject, but knowing, aswe all do, that these sentiments are sincerely and honestly entertained, we cannot wonder that theyfeel the most unspeakable indignation when any attempt is made to interfere with their rights. Thissentiment results naturally and necessarily from their education and habits of thinking. They cannothelp it, any more than an honest man in the North can avoid abhorring a thief or house breaker.

The jurists, legislators, and people of the Northern States, have always sacredly respected theright of property in slaves held by their own citizens within their own jurisdiction. It is a remarkablefact, very well worth noticing, that no Northern State ever passed any law to take a negro from hismaster. All laws for the abolition of slavery have operated only on the unborn descendants of thenegro race, and the vested rights of masters have not been disturbed in the North more than in theSouth.

In every nation under Heaven, civilized, semi-barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed in anyform at all analogous to ours, the rights of the masters to the control of their slaves as property havebeen respected; and on no occasion has any Government struck at those rights, except as it wouldstrike at other property. Even the British Parliament, when it emancipated the West India slaves,though it was legislating for a people three thousand miles away and not represented, never deniedeither the legal or the natural right of the slave owner. Slaves were admitted to be property, andthe Government acknowledged it by paying their masters one hundred millions of dollars for theprivilege of setting them free.

Here, then, is a species of property which is of transcendent importance to the material interestsof the South— which the people of that region think it right and meritorious in the eyes of God andgood men to hold—which is sanctioned by the general sense of all mankind among whom it hasexisted—which was legal only a short time ago in all the States of the Union, and was then treatedas sacred by every one of them—which is guarantied to the owner as much as any other property isguarantied by the Constitution; and Mr. Douglas thinks that a territorial legislature is competent totake it away. We say, No; the supreme legislative power of a sovereign State alone can deprive a manof his property.

This proposition is so plain, so well established, and so universally acknowledged, that any argumentin its favor would be a mere waste of words. Mr Douglas does not deny it, and it did not requirethe thousandth part of his sagacity to see that it was undeniable. He claims for the Territorialgovernments the right of confiscating private property on the ground that those governments ARE


sovereign —have an uncontrollable and independent power over all their internal affairs. That is thepoint which he thinks is to split the Democracy and impale the nation. But it is so entirely erroneous,that it must vanish into thin air as soon as it comes to be examined.

A Territorial government is merely provisional and temporary. It is created by Congress for thenecessary preservation of order and the purposes of police. The powers conferred upon it areexpressed in the organic act, which is the charter of its existence, and which may be changedor repealed at the pleasure of Congress. In most of those acts the power has been expresslyreserved to Congress of revising the Territorial laws, and the power to repeal them exists withoutsuch reservation. This was asserted in the case of Kansas by the most distinguished Senators inthe Congress of 1856 The President appoints the Governor, Judges, and all other officers whoseappointment is not otherwise provided for, directly or indirectly, by Congress. Even the expensesof the Territorial government are paid out of the Federal Treasury. The truth is, they have noattribute of sovereignty about them. The essence of sovereignty consists in having no superior. Buta Territorial government has a superior in the United States Government, upon whose pleasure itis dependent for its very existence—in whom it lives, and moves, and has its being—who has madeand can unmake it with a breath.

Where does this sovereign authority to deprive men of their property come from? This transcendentpower, which even despots are cautious about using, and which a constitutional monarch neverexercises—how does it get into a Territorial Legislature? 5 Surely it does not drop from the clouds:it will not be contended that it accompanies the settlers or exists in the Territory before itsorganization. Indeed it is not to the people, but to the government of a Territory, that Mr. Douglassays it belongs. Then Congress must give the power at the same time that it gives the Territorialgovernment. But not a word of the kind is to be found in any organic act that ever was framed. It isthus that Mr. Douglas's argument runs itself out into nothing.

But if Congress would pass a statute expressly to give this sort of power to the Territorialgovernments, they still would not have it; for the Federal Government itself does not possessany control over men's property in the Territories. That such power does not exist in the FederalGovernment needs no proof: Mr. Douglas admits it fully and freely. It is, besides, established by thesolemn decision of Congress, by the assent of the Executive, and by the direct ratification of thepeople acting in their primary capacity at the polls. In addition to all this, the Supreme Court havedeliberately adjudged it to be an unalterable and undeniable rule of Constitutional law.

This acknowledgment that Congress has no power, authority, or jurisdiction over the subject, literallyobliges Mr. Douglas to give up his doctrine, or else to maintain it by asserting that a power which theFederal Government does not possess may be given by Congress to the Territorial government. The right


to abolish African slavery in a Territory is not granted by the Constitution to Congress; it is withheld,and therefore the same as if expressly prohibited. Yet Mr. Douglas declares that Congress may giveit to the Territories Nay; he goes further, and says that the want of the power in Congress is the veryreason why it can delegate it—the general rule, in his opinion, being that Congress cannot delegatethe powers it possesses, but may delegate such, “and only such, as Congress cannot exerciseunder the Constitution!” By turning to pages 520 and 521 the reader will see that this astoundingproposition is actually made, not in jest or irony, but solemnly, seriously, and, no doubt, in perfectgood faith. On this principle, as Congress cannot exercise the power to make an ex post facto law, ora law impairing the obligation of contracts, therefore it may authorize such laws to be made by theTown Councils of Washington city, or the Levy Court of the District. If Congress passes an act to hanga man without trial, it is void, and the Judges will not allow it to be executed; but the power to do thisprohibited thing can be constitutionally given by Congress to a Territorial Legislature!

We admit that there are certain powers bestowed upon the General Government which are intheir nature judicial or executive. With them Congress can do nothing, except to see that theyare executed by the proper kind of officers. It is also true that Congress has certain legislativepowers which cannot be delegated. But Mr. Douglas should have known that he was not talkingabout powers which belonged to either of these classes, but about a legislative jurisdiction totallyforbidden to the Federal Government, and incapable of being delegated for the simple reason that itdoes not constitutionally exist.

Will anybody say that such a power ought, as a matter of policy, or for reasons of public safety, to beheld by the provisional governments of the Territories? Undoubtedly no true patriot, nor no friend ofjustice and order, can deliberately reflect on the probable consequences without deprecating them.

This power over property is the one which in all governments has been most carefully guarded,because the temptation to abuse it is always greater than any other. It is there that the subjectsof a limited monarchy watch their King with the greatest jealousy. No Republic has ever failed toimpose strict limitations upon it. All free people know that, if they would remain free, they mustcompel the government to keep its hands off their private property; and this can be done only bytying them up with careful restrictions. Accordingly our Federal Constitution declares that “no personshall be deprived of his property except by due process of law,” and that “private property shall notbe taken for public use without just compensation.” It is universally agreed that this applies only tothe exercise of the power by the Government of the United States. We are also protected against theState governments by a similar provision in the State Constitutions. Legislative robbery is thereforea crime which cannot be committed either by Congress or by any State Legislature, unless it bedone in flat rebellion to the fundamental law of the land. But if the Territorial governments have


this power, then they have it without any limitation whatsoever, and in all the fulness of absolutedespotism. They are omnipotent in regard to all their internal affairs, for they are sovereigns, withouta Constitution to hold them in check. And this omnipotent sovereignty is to be wielded by a few mensuddenly drawn together from all parts of America and Europe, unacquainted with one another, andignorant of their relative rights. But if Mr. Douglas is right, those governments have all the absolutepower of the Russian Autocrat. They may take every kind of property in mere caprice, or for anypurpose of lucre or malice, without process of law, and without providing for compensation. Thelegislature of Kansas, sitting at Lecompton or Lawrence, may order the miners to give up everyounce of gold that has been dug at Pike's Peak. If the authorities of Utah should license a band ofmaurauders to despoil the emigrants crossing the territory, their sovereign rights to do so cannot bequestioned. A new Territory may be organized, which Southern men think should be devoted to theculture of cotton, while the people of the North are equally certain that grazing alone is the properbusiness to be carried on there. If one party, by accident, by force, or by fraud, had a majority in thelegislature, the negroes are taken from the planters; and if the other set gains a political victory, itis followed by a statute to plunder the graziers of their cattle. Such things cannot be done by theFederal Government, nor by the governments of the States; but, if Mr. Douglas is not mistaken,they can be done by the territorial governments. Is it not every way better to wait until the newinhabitants know themselves and one another; until the policy of the Territory is settled by someexperience, and above all, until the great powers of a sovereign State are regularly conferred uponthem and properly limited, so as to prevent the gross abuses which always accompany unrestrictedpower in human hands?

There is another consideration which Mr. Douglas should have been the last man to overlook. Thepresent Administration of the Federal Government, and the whole Democratic party throughoutthe country, including Mr. Douglas, thought that in the case of Kansas the question of retainingor abolishing slavery should not be determined by any representative body without giving to thewhole mass of the people an opportunity of voting on it. Mr. Douglas carried it further, and warmlyopposed the Constitution, denying even its validity, because other and undisputed parts of it hadnot also been submitted to a popular vote 6 Now he is willing that the whole slavery dispute inany Territory, and all questions that can arise concerning the rights of the people to that or otherproperty, shall be decided at once by a territorial legislature, without any submission at all. Popularsovereignty in the last Congress meant the freedom of the people from all the restraints of law andorder: now it means a government which shall rule them with a rod of iron. It swings like a pendulumfrom one side clear over to the other.

Mr. Douglas's opinions on this subject of sovereign Territorial governments are very singular; butthe reasons he has produced to support them are infinitely more curious still. For instance, he


shows that Jefferson once introduced into the old Congress of the Confederation a plan for thegovernment of the Territories, calling them by the name of “new States,” but not making them anything like sovereign or independent States; and though this was a mere experimental project, whichwas rejected by Congress, and never afterwards referred to by Jefferson himself, yet Mr. Douglasargues upon it as if it had somehow become a part of our fundamental law.

Again: He says that the States gave to the Federal government the same powers which as Coloniesthey had been willing to concede to the British Government, and kept those which as colonies theyhad claimed for themselves. If he will read a common school history of the Revolution, and then lookat Art. 1, sec. 8, of the Constitution, he will find the two following facts fully established: 1. That theFederal Government has “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;” and, 2. Thatthe colonies, before the Revolution, utterly refused to be taxed by Great Britain; and, so far fromconceding the power, fought against it for seven long years.

There is another thing in the article which, if it had not come from a distinguished Senator, anda very upright gentleman, would have been open to some imputation of unfairness. He quotesthe President's message, and begins in the middle of a sentence. He professes to give the verywords, and makes Mr. Buchanan say: “That slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution ofthe United States” What Mr. Buchanan did say was a very different thing. It was this: “It has beensolemnly adjudged by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansasby virtue of the Constitution of the United States.” Everybody knows that by treating the Bible in thatway, you can prove the non-existence of God.

The argumentum ad hominem is not fair; and we do not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a rightto change his opinions whenever he pleases. But we quote him as we would any other authorityequally high in favor of truth We can prove by himself that every proposition he lays down inHarper's Magazine is founded in error. Never before has any public man in America so completelyrevolutionized his political opinions in the course of eighteen months. We do not deny that thechange is heartfelt and conscientious. We only insist that he formerly stated his propositions muchmore clearly, and sustained them with far greater ability and better reasons, than he does now.

When he took a tour to the South, at the beginning of last winter, he made a speech at New Orleans,in which he announced to the people there that he and his friends in Illinois accepted the Dred Scottdecision, regarded slaves as property, and fully admitted the right of a Southern man to go into anyfederal territory with his slave, and to hold him there as other property is held.

In 1849 he voted in the Senate for what was called Walker's amendment, by which it was proposedto put all the internal affairs of California and New Mexico under the domination of the President,


giving him almost unlimited power, legislative, judicial, and executive, over the internal afairs at thoseTerritories. (See 30th Cong., p. .) Undoubtedly this was a strange way of treating sovereignties. If Mr.Douglas is right now, he was guilty then of most atrocious usurpation.

Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other Territory, and as perfectly entitled to enjoy the rightof self-government. On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr Douglas made a speech about Utah at Springfield,Illinois, in which he expressed his opinion strongly in favor of the absolute and unconditional repeal ofthe organic act, blotting the territorial government out of existence, and putting the people under thesole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, like a fort, arsenal, dockyard, or magazine. He doesnot seem to have had the least idea then that he was proposing to extinguish a sovereignty, or totrample upon the sacred rights of an independent people

The report which he made to the Senate in 1856, on the Topeka Constitution, enunciates a verydifferent doctrine from that of the magazine article. It is true that the language is a little cloudy,but no one can understand the following sentences to signify that the territorial governments havesovereign power to take away the property of the inhabitants:

“The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance suspended in the United States, in trust for thepeople until they shall be admitted into the Union as a State. In the meantime they are admitted to enjoyand exercise all the rights and privileges of self-government in subordination to the Constitution ofthe United States, and IN OBEDIENCE TO THE ORGANIC LAW, passed by Congress in pursuance ofthat instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution through the actof Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictionswhich that Constitution imposes.”

The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia meeting, in February, 1858, is more explicit, and, barringsome anomalous ideas concerning the abeyance of the power and the suspension of it in in trust, it isclear enough:

“Under our territorial system, it requires sovereign power to ordain and establish constitutionsand governments. While a Territory may and should enjoy all the rights of self-government, inobedience to its organic law, it is not a sovereign power. The sovereignty of a Territory remains inabeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State, and cannotbe withdrawn from the hands of the trustee and vested in the people of a Territory without the consent ofCongress ”

The report which he made in the same month, from the Senate Committee on Territories, is equallydistinct, and rather more emphatic against his new doctrine:


“This committee in their reports have always held that a Territory is not a sovereign power; that thesovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the peoplewhen they become a State; that the United States, as trustees, cannot be divested of the sovereignty,nor the Territory be invested with the right to assume and exercise it, without the consent ofCongress. If the proposition be true that sovereign power alone can institute governments, and thatthe sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the peoplewhen they become a State, and that the sovereignty cannot be divested from the hands of 7 thetrustee without the assent of Congress, it follows, as an inevitable consequence, that the KansasLegislature did not and could not confer upon the Lecompton Convention the sovereign power ofordaining a Constitution for the people of Kansas, in place of the organic act passed by Congress.”

The days are past and gone when Mr. Douglas led the fiery assaults of the Opposition in theLecompton controversy. Then it was his object to prove that a territorial legislature, so far from beingomnipotent, was powerless even to authorize an election of delegates to consider about their ownaffairs. It was asserted that a convention chosen under a territorial law could make and ordain noconstitution which would be legally binding. Then a territorial government was to be despised andspit upon, even when it invited people to come forward and vote on a question of the most vitalimportance to their own interests. But now all things have become new. The Lecompton dispute has“gone glimmering down the dream of things that were,” and Mr. Douglas produces another issue,brand-new from the mint. The old opinions are not worth a rush to his present position; it mustbe sustained by opposite principles and reasoning totally different. The Legislature of Kansas wasnot sovereign when it authorized a Convention of the people to assemble and decide what sort ofa Constitution they would have, but when it strikes at their rights of property, it becomes not onlya sovereign, but a sovereign without limitation of power. We have no idea that Mr. Douglas is notperfectly sincere, as he was also when he took the other side. The impulses engendered by theheat of the controversy have driven him at different times in opposite directions. We do not chargeit against him as a crime, but it is true that these views of his, inconsistent as they are with oneanother, always happen to accord with the interests of the Opposition, always give to the enemies ofthe Constitution a certain amount of “aid and comfort,” and always add a little to the rancorous andmalignant hatred with which the Abolitionists regard the Government of their own country.

Yes: the Lecompton issue which Mr. Douglas made upon the Administration two years ago is done,and the principles on which we were then opposed are abandoned. We are no longer required tofight for the lawfulness of a Territorial election held under territorial authority. But another issue isthrust upon us to “disturb the harmony and threaten the integrity” of the party. A few words more,


(perhaps of tedious repetition,) by way of showing what that new issue is, or probably will be, and weare done.

We insist that an emigrant going into a federal Territory retains his title to the property which he tookwith him until there is some prohibition enacted by lawful authority. Mr. Douglas cannot deny this inthe face of his New Orleans speech, and the overwhelming reasons which support it.

It is an agreed point among all Democrats that Congress cannot interfere with the rights of propertyin the Territories.

It is also acknowledged that the people of a new State, either in their Constitution or in an act of theirLegislature, may make the negroes within it free, or hold them in a state of servitude.

But we believe more. We believe—in submitting to the law as decided by the Supreme Court, whichdeclares that a Territorial Legislature cannot, any more than Congress, interfere with the rights ofproperty in a Territory—that the settlers of a Territory are bound to wait until the sovereign power isconferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exercise the most dangerousof all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is the new issue.

Why should such an issue be made at such a time? What is there now to excuse any friend of peacefor attempting to stir up the bitter waters of strife? There is no actual difficulty about this subject inany Territory. There is no question upon it pending before Congress or the country. We are calledupon to make a contest, at once unnecessary and hopeless, with the judicial authority of the nation.We object to it. We will not obey Mr. Douglas when he commands us to assault the Supreme Court ofthe United States. We believe the Court to be right, and Mr. Douglas wrong.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

[From the New York Day Book.]

“ Squatter Sovereignty ”—We trust our readers will all peruse the able article from the WashingtonConstitution upon Senator Douglas' special hobby, “squatter sovereignty.” The writer is reportedto be Attorney General Black, but whoever whenever he may be, it must be allowed by all candidpeople that he has completely demolished all of Mr. Douglas' sophisms. The point of difference isplain and radical. Mr. Douglas stands upon the fundamental heresy of the abolitionists that African“slavery” is the creature of the local law, and indirect opposition to the Dred Scott decision, whichholds that “slavery” in the case of the negro is the general or common law, and so-called freedom


the exception. Two persons reasoning from these premises, of course, could never come to thesame conclusion. The position of the Democratic party, therefore, is that “slaves,” being property asrecognized by the Constitution, remain “slaves” unless taken to some sovereign State where the locallaw reverses their status. But as Congress has no power to reverse this status, so a Territory, whichderives its power from Congress, cannot reverse it. All this is very plain and simple, and every onewho studies it for a moment can understand it; but Mr. Douglas so embarrasses the question withside issues and wordy declamations about “popular rights,” “the sovereignty of the people,” &c., thatit actually confuses many well meaning people. This clear and able essay will do much to dissipatethe fog in which a very plain and simple subject has been enveloped by politicians.

[From the Louisville Courier]

Judge Black on Judge Douglas. —We published Judge Black's review of Douglas' copyrighted essayin Harper in our issue of Saturday, and all who read it can bear testimony to its great ability, itsprofound statesmanship, and its entire freedom from anything coarse or offensive. Clear in style,massive in argument, it was at the same time eminently high-toned and courteous. Incapable ofreplying successfully to the unanswerable argument of Judge Black's review, Senator Douglas hastaken himself to abuse and denunciation, the usual resort of men “driven to the wall” in politicaldiscussions.

The speeches of Senator Douglas in Ohio clearly indicate that he is aiming to ignore every principleof the Democratic party, and make them subservient to his dogma of “squatter sovereignty.” Howcan he support the nominee of the Charleston Convention, who will be placed on a sound nationalplatform, we confess we cannot see. It cannot be that Mr. Douglas is so ignorant of the sentimentsof the Democracy of the Nation as to imagine that they will consent to the incorporation of hisheresies into the platform of the party. They will, most assuredly, repudiate his views, and we cannotsee what is to be gained by his continued discussion of them.

[From the New York Herald.]

Judge Black on the Late Popular Sovereignty Manifesto of Judge Douglas. —We lay before ourreaders this morning a searching and conclusive reply to the late popular-sovereignty manifesto ofMr. Douglas, from that clear headed constitutional lawyer, Judge Black, the present Attorney Generalof the United States. This announcement, in securing for the paper in question an extensive andcareful consideration among reflecting men of all parties, will contribute much to dissipate the flimsysophistries with which Mr. Douglas has invested this delusive abstraction of popular sovereignty inthe Territories.


The work undertaken in this connection by Judge Black is to show, first, that Mr. Douglas “hasnot correctly stated the doctrines” held by his Democratic opponents; and, secondly, “that hisown opinions, as given by himself, are altogether unsound.” Upon the first point, in reply to theassertion of Mr. Douglas that a “portion of the Democratic party believe, or profess to believe, thatthe Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories,” Judge Black says that the Constitution does nosuch thing—that “nobody in the country ever thought or said so;” but he pleads that the Constitutiondoes establish the right on the part “of the legal owner of a slave or other property to go with it intoa federal Territory without forfeiting his title.” Upon this proposition the whole question hinges, andthe clear, consistent, and common-sense argument of Mr. Black in support of this right of property,will somewhat impress the reader 9 with the slippery nature of the ground occupied by the IllinoisSenator.

The exact point of difference between the two learned Judges in the premises is here: Judge Douglasholds that a Territorial Legislature, by “friendly or unfriendly legislation,” may admit slavery into theTerritory or exclude it therefrom. Judge Black contends that no such power is vested in a TerritorialLegislature, and that those who desire to confiscate private property of any kind must wait untilthey get a constitutional Convention or the machinery of a State Government into their hands.” Insupport of this proposition the simple facts that a Territorial Government is merely provisional andtemporary, that it is the creature of Congress, and may be changed, suspended, or repealed at thepleasure of Congress, are conclusive; and no lengthened argument is needed to show the fallacyof the doctrine of Mr. Douglas, that substantially a Territorial Government holds the same localsovereignty as that of a State.

The quotations from the speeches and reports of Mr. Douglas, given in this argument against him,show that it is only since the adjournment of the last Congress that he has given this finishingtouch to his dogma of territorial sovereignty, and that at present his position is a step or two inadvance of that which he occupied against the Topeka and Lecompton Constitutions. In fact, wecan only account for his present position upon the assumption that he has taken it deliberately forthe purpose of making an issue with the Charleston Convention, which will give him some color ofjustification in running as a Northern Democratic stump candidate for the Presidency.

In no other way can we account for these late instructions of Mr. Douglas, which will require theNational Democracy at Charleston to recognise the general sovereignty of a Territory as on apar with the sovereignty of a State. The views of Judge Black reflect the views and policy of Mr.Buchanan. If they govern the Charleston Convention in the matter of the party platform it may not,after all, be a very difficult task to find a proper candidate, dispensing with Douglas, Wise and allother sectional ultras. The result may be a movement on the part of Douglas and his adherents


which, in conjunction with the Southern opposition, as another independent party, may throw theelection into Congress; but even there, should Mr. Douglas be one of the three highest candidates,we cannot comprehend the contingency of his election. But can it be that Mr. Douglas is contentwith the role of Martin Van Buren? Let the future determine.

We submit for the present this argument of Judge Black to the careful consideration of the honestdisciples of Mr. Douglas. If they are not thus convinced of the fallacies of his territorial sovereigntywe may pretty safely assume that they too are simply resolved to follow their leader in his designs ofrule or ruin.

[From the Memphis (Tenn.) Daily Avalanche.]

The Reply to Judge Douglas' Magazine Article. —Reader, we beg and beseech of you not to lay thispaper down until you read the able and triumphant reply to Senator Douglas' views of popularsovereignty. The article appears on the first side of this morning's Avalanche It is understood to befrom a member of Mr. Buchanan's cabinet—Attorney General Black of Pennsylvania.

The triumphant and admirable exposure of the vagaries of Senator Douglas upon the subjectof squatter sovereignty will make Judge Black one of the most prominent men in the Union. Hehas long been known as a statesman, as a national Democrat, and a gentleman of eminent legalattainments, but since the publication of his reply to Senator Douglas his name has blazed acrossthe political firmament like a shooting meteor. For the future Judge Black is destined to occupy afront rank in the list of Democratic statesmen. Scorning all clap trap and specialities, he addresseshimself to the great question which has so long been clouded by Judge Douglas' mystifications, andmakes every point as clear as the sun at noon. He unravels the subject which selfish demagogueshave entangled. Every word is to the point. There is no space or language wasted. Be deals withthe question in the elevated temper of a man who feels that he is right. In its dignified tone, in itselevated superiority to all clap trap appeal, in its calm, lucid, nervous, and truthful presentation ofthe question at issue between the Constitution and its assailants, Judge Black's reply surpasses anypaper of the sort which we have ever read We do not recommend it to the giddy partisan, or to theinfatuated toadies of Judge Douglas, who are determined to adhere to his sinking fortunes—forthese can poorly appreciate such a paper—but we do recommend it the careful and candid perusalof that class of men whose fair and honest minds are always more easily wrought upon by words of“truth and soberness,” than by the extravagant clap trap slang whang of the infatuated politician.

Douglas and Seward —The Jackson Mississippian makes a remark on the doctrines of SenatorDouglas, as compared with those of Senator Seward, which goes to confirm the general impression


that among Southern men both are regarded as equally hostile to the rights and interests andsentiments of that portion of the Union. It declares:

“Douglas' doctrine on the Territorial question is as much in conflict with the Dred Scott decision asthe doctrine of Seward, and it is perfect folly to talk to supporting one and resisting the inaugurationof the other. The Southern Democracy must be just and consistent in their professions and practicesif they would command the respect and deserve the endorsement of the whole Southern people inthe policy they propose.”

The Richmond Enquirer, to the same effect, says:

“So far, then, as the great question of principle involved is concerned, there is no material differencebetween Mr. Douglas and Mr. Seward. Both deny the inalienable right of the citizens of each Stateto enjoy, on territory common to all States, every species of property which any citizen may lawfullyhold within the limits of any one of the States. Mr. Seward attributes the power to abrogate thisright to a great Federal legislative body, where the attempt would be met with the strenuousopposition of a full body of Southern Representatives, whose action and deliberation are constantsubjects of watchful attention and jealous comment to the whole people of the Union. Mr. Douglasattributes the same power to isolated and obscure local authorities, among whom the slaveholdersof the Union may be altogether excluded, even from partial representation, whose members andconstituencies are comparatively responsible.

“Certainly, Mr. Douglas' doctrine is equally obnoxious in theory with that of Mr. Seward, and muchmore easily reduced to practical adoption.”

The Charleston Mercury is still more decided and vehement. It says.

“We regard him (Judge Douglas) as ambitious and as designing as Seward himself. The same policyin the Territories is to be carried out by a different method. How any who profess to value 10 theConstitution or the rights and interests of the South can, for the sake of a party success destituteof principle, talk of supporting Douglas, is more than we are able to comprehend. To us it seems anunblushing abandonment of all.”

From the North American & United States Gazette, Philadelphia, Sept. 17th.

Judge Black and the Territories. —If any doubt remained respecting one highly important questionat issue between the Administration and the people of this country, the article communicatedby Judge Black to the Washington Constitution, ought to remove it forever. The essay to which we


allude displays more than the wanted ability of its author. As a criticism of the paper contributedby Senator Douglas to Harper's Magazine, it is thorough and scathing; and it is a happy rejoinderto much that the same gentleman has uttered in the speeches he made in the course of his tourthrough some of the States last summer. This acknowledgment is due to the merit of an article thathas created more than an ordinary sensation.

From the Washington Constitution, Sept. 13.

Douglas Reviewed. —We are quite within bounds when we say that very few State papers of thehighest consequence, and no political essay, speech, or document of any description whatever,attracted at any time greater attention, or received a higher degree of approbation than have beenbestowed on the pamphlet reviewing the famous article contributed to Harper's Magazine by Mr.Senator Douglas. It is universally admitted to be one of the best specimens of analytical examination,luminous exposition, and close and cogent reasoning to be found within the whole compass of ourpolitical literature.

Sound Doctrine at the Home of Senator Douglas. —The Chicago Herald, which had the reputationof inclining to the support of Senator Douglas' Presidential claims, lays down a sound platform. Itunderstands the doctrine of the Democratic party, respecting slavery in the Territories, to be asfollows:

“That neither Congress nor the people of the Territories can prohibit slavery therein; but thatthe Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, guarantees to theslaveholder the right to take his slaves into the Territories and hold them there as property; andpledges the Federal Government to protect him in the peaceable possession of such property in anyTerritory of the United States; that when the people of a Territory from a Constitution, preparatoryto their admission as a State, then, and not till then, can they decide to prohibit slavery; and thatwhen they shall have framed a Constitution, and ask to be admitted as a State, if their Constitutionbe ‘republican in form,’ and if they have complied with the proper laws in other respects, Congressshould admit the new State whether its Constitution permits or prohibits slavery.”

[From the N. Y. Journal of Commerce.]

The Territorial Question. —We invite the attention of our readers to a very able article on our firstpage in reply to that of Senator Douglas in the last number of Harper's Magazine on the territorialquestion. We hope no reader will be deterred from a perusal of the article by its length. We haveheard its authorship attributed to a very high source; but whether correctly or not we cannot say. Ittakes the true Democratic ground, which refers the question of slavery in a Territory to the decision


of its inhabitants when they enter the Union as a State— not in their unfledged condition, when firstorganized into a Territory. It also repudiates Wise's doctrine of Congressional interference.

[From the Chambersburg (Pa.) Valley Spirit.]

The Reply to Douglas. —According to promise, we lay before our readers Judge Black's reply toSenator Douglas' squatter sovereignty argument in Harper's Magazine. We wish we could give theman idea of the enthusiasm with which these observations upon Mr. Douglas' views have beenreceived all over the country. Some of the most distinguished jurists in the United States havepronounced Judge Black's argument unanswerable. The Democratic press is unanimous in its praise,and not a few opposition prints have candidly confessed its marked ability. The New York Timesand Washington Republic, both opposition journals, admit that it is the strongest document onthe Territorial question that has yet been laid before the public, and the Times anticipates that Mr.Douglas will feel the necessity of replying to it. The only paper we have seen that has not alluded tothe article with decent respect is Forney's Press, a journal that has sunk so low as to be incapable ofdecent behavior.

[From the Cleveland (O.) National Democrat]

Judge Black's Reply. —It is now well known that the masterly reply to Judge Douglas' Harper essaywas written by the distinguished Attorney General of the United States, Judge Black. The argumentstherein set forth are pronounced by all jurists and unprejudiced men as wholly unanswerable. JudgeDouglas, at Wooster on last Friday, took up this reply, and for the manner in which he noticed it werefer our readers to the Plaindealer of yesterday. It will be found that he did not attempt a reply tothe main points, but contented himself with personal abuse of the author. An evening cotemporaryundertakes to make light of the arguments, and even intimates that it is a hoax—that Judge Black “istoo shrewd a Cabinet officer to be caught dabbling with politicians in the newspapers.”

The intelligent public are not going to pass this matter over so lightly. The reply will be read by thewhole country, and the almost universal judgment will be that the Harper essay preaches false anddangerous doctrine, and will not be sustained by the Democratic party in Convention at Charleston.

The New York Times, a paper which is disposed to sustain Judge Douglas, does not consider thisdocument in the light that our cotemporary does, as will be seen by the following extract:

“The Constitution of Saturday publishes a reply to Senator Douglas' views on popular sovereignty—filling six columns of that paper, and understood to be from the pen of the Attorney General, JudgeBlack. It is clear in its style, temperate in tone, and exceedingly forcible and cogent in argument. The


position presented in this article as that of the Democratic party is, that slaves are recognized bythe Federal Constitution as property in States where the local law so treats them; that they remainproperty when taken into any State of which the local law does not forbid their being so regarded;that Congress has no right to deprive their owners of this property in the Territories or other placesunder its jurisdiction; and that, as it cannot delegate a power which it does not possess, neither thelegislature, nor the people of a Territory have any authority to prohibit slavery within its borders.It concedes, however, that when they come to form a State Constitution, 11 they may establish orprohibit slavery, as they see fit. Until then they have no power whatever over the subject.

“The positions of the article in the Constitution are stated with great clearness and precision, and leaveno room for misunderstanding or controvery as to their meaning. Its ability, and the cogency of someof its extracts from former speeches of Judge Douglas, will probably constrain him to take some noticeof it.”

[From the New Hampshire Gazette.]

Douglas Reviewed —The Constitution has published a full and very able review of Senator Douglas'late article in Harper's Magazine. In our judgment it is a clear and conclusive exposition of thesophistries and fallacies of the Senator, and a complete refutation of his essential positions. Itought to be read by every Democrat who prefers principles to men, and who would not sacrificethe safe, sound, and long tried doctrines of the Democratic party to a theory which, as agitated andinterpreted by Mr. Douglas, is merely a pleasant sounding name, which can bring no good to theDemocratic cause. The article is rather too long to be copied entire in our columns, but we shall seewhat we can do with it another time.

[From the Chicago Herald.]

Douglasism Refuted. —To the exclusion of much other matter designed for this issue of the Herald,we publish, entire, the concise and masterly refutation of the Magazine manifesto of Mr. Douglas,from a pamphlet copy, published by Thos. McGill, Washington, D. C. It is intimated by those whoare likely to be well informed on the subject, that Attorney General Black is the author of these“observations.” Be that as it may, we hazard nothing in saying that the arguments employed andfacts adduced in refutation of the doctrines of the manifesto are effectual: and so far as sound logiccan go in demolishing the absurd theory of the Senator, he may safely consider himself a used-upindividual. We commend the article to the candid consideration of our readers.

[From the Lynchburg Virginian]


We submitted some reflections yesterday upon the present and prospective policy of the Democraticparty, showing the inconsistency of the party, and especially of its Southern wing, in the preparationthey are evidently making to support Judge Douglas for the Presidency. We give also extracts fromthe recent article of Judge Black in reply to Douglas' essay on squatter sovereignty, adducing the“little giant's” former declarations to disprove the flimsy and transparent logic of his late manifesto.We conclude our extracts from the article of the Attorney General this morning with the followingresume of the doctrines which he asserts as being held by the party—in opposition to those newtaught by Mr. Douglas. Says Judge Black:

We insist that an emigrant going into a Federal Territory retains his right to the property which hetook with him, until there is some prohibition enacted by lawful authority. Mr. Douglas cannot denythis in the face of his New Orleans speech and the overwhelming reasons which support it.

It is an agreed point among all Democrats that Congress cannot interfere with the rights of propertyin the Territories.

It is also acknowledged that the people of a new State, either in their Constitution or in an act of theirLegislature, may make the negroes within it free, or hold them in a state of servitude.

[From the Detroit Free Press.]

Senator Douglas Reviewed. —A pamphlet has been issued at Washington, which is also havingconsiderable newspaper circulation, the authorship of which is attributed to Attorney General Black,in review of the essay of Senator Douglas contained in the last number of Harper's Magazine. It iswritten with great force and will command scarcely less attention than the essay of the Senator.Indeed, as a piece of severe criticism it has rarely been excelled. The chief points of differencebetween the distinguished writers are two: 1. With regard to the belief attributed by the Senatorto a portion of the Democratic party that the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories. 2.With regard to the powers which a Territorial Legislature may exercise, the Senator holding that itmay exercise all the powers of a State Legislature over local affairs, which powers are sovereign,and by which the rights of property may be affected, and the writer of the pamphlet holding that aTerritorial Legislature has no sovereign powers, and that the supreme legislative power of a Statealone can deprive a man of his property.

But we believe more. We believe in submitting to the case decided by the Supreme Court, whichdeclares that a Territorial Legislature cannot, any more than Congress, interfere with the rights ofproperty in a Territory; that the settlers of a Territory are bound to wait until the sovereign power is


conferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exercise the most dangerousof all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is the new issue.

The Attorney General presents with great clearness and cogency the points of difference betweenthe Supreme Court and the Democratic party, as he affirms, on the one hand, and those of Douglason the other, deprecating the position and policy of the latter, in the following terms:

“What is there now to excuse any friend of peace for attempting to stir up the bitter waters of strife?There is no question upon it pending before Congress or the country. We are called upon to makea contract, at once unnecessary and hopeless, with the judicial authority of the nation. We object toit. We will not obey Mr. Douglas when he commands us to assault the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates. We believe the Court to be right, and Mr. Douglas wrong.

[From the Belfast (Me.) Republican Journal.]

Territorial Sovereignty. —We invite the attention of our readers to the article from the WashingtonConstitution written in reply to Mr. Douglas'Harper article. The authorship of the article in theConstitution is generally attributed to Judge Black, the Attorney General of the United States. Itis a clear statement and severe analysis of the whole question of slavery in the Territories, andcompletely exhausts the argument. If the writer has not established these two propositions by themost irrefragable arguments, we have never seen any proposition in politics established, viz:

1. That a slave or free negro in going from a State into a Territory preserves his political conditionor status, unless there is some law of the Territory, passed by competent authority, to change thatcondition or status.

2 That a Territorial Legislature has no right to change this relation.

The writer in the Constitution makes it plain to the commonest apprehension that the powersclaimed for a Territorial Legislature are greater than any State Legislature possesses, or has everexercised, and more despotic than the most absolute monarch in Europe would dare to employ,inasmuch 12 as those alleged powers are commensurate with the will of a Territorial Legislature,unlimited by any Constitutional provision; whereas the powers of a State Legislature are definedand limited by the supreme law, called the Constitution. In other words, the powers of a TerritorialLegislature are sovereign, while those of a State Legislature are subordinate.

The exception taken to the position in the Harper article, that the fact that Congress does notpossess these powers under the Constitution is the reason why it can delegate them to a Territorial


Legislature, is admirably taken, and the quotations from Douglas's former speeches and reportsneed no comment. According to these extracts, “the sovereignty of a Territory,” prior to December,1857, “was held in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people until they shouldbe admitted into the Union as a State.” When, we would respectfully inquire, did this sovereigntypass out of this condition of “abeyance” and “suspension” into a Territorial Legislature?

[From the Lancaster Intelligencer.]

Read, and Then Judge —On our first page will be found, in extenso, the “Observations on SenatorDouglas' Views of Popular Sovereignty, as expressed in Harper's Magazine for September, 1859” This,we think, is one of the ablest and most convincing arguments on the subject we have ever read, andwe incline to the belief that our readers will be of the same opinion after they have given it a carefulperusal.

(From the North Carolina Statesman.)

Reply to Senator Douglas —We have the pleasure to day of laying before our readers a reply to therecent essay of Senator Douglas, and we bespeak for it the attention of all who would thoroughlyunderstand the question discussed. We regard this reply as not only able, but conclusive.

This document is generally attributed to the pen of Mr Attorney General Black. It has, no doubt, thecordial approval of Mr Buchanan. It contains the true doctrine, as held not only in the South, but bynine-tenths of the Northern National Democracy. Read and file away for future reference

[From the Georgia Telegraph.]

Judge Black's “Observations.” —Upon a careful re-reading of Attorney General Black's review ofMr Douglas' Harper article, we are inclined to regard it as the best thing ever yet written upon thequestion of slavery in the Territories Everything which has fallen from Judge Black since he was firstintroduced to the public in official connection with the Administration, has shown a comprehensive,analytical mind of the highest order. He is one of the intellectual Anaks of the country, and his briefpamphlet is the club of Hercules to the Douglas theory of Territorial sovereignty.

[From the Memphis Avalanche.]

Judge Douglas Reviewed. —The article in the Washington Constitution of the 10th of September,in reply to the Harper's Magazine manifesto of Judge Douglas, is one of the most lucid, thoroughand complete reviews of the territorial question that it has ever been our pleasure to read. It socompletely upsets the distinguished Senator's squatter-sovereignty argument, that none but the


most blindly prejudiced can fail to see that his doctrine is as false and unconstitutional as it is odiousand dangerous. In our Monday's issue we shall publish the article entire, and from men of all partieswe ask for it a thorough and careful perusal.

From the Huntindon (Pa) Union.

The article of Judge Douglas, in Harper's Magazine, has called forth a reply in the WashingtonConstitution, which is supposed to have been written by Attorney General Black. He reviews at lengththe propositions laid down by the Senator from Illinois, and meets them with a torrent of reasoningat once convincing and overwhelming. We have seldom read an argument that is so plain, candidand conclusive. It would afford us pleasure to publish it, but we have not the space. It is printed inpamphlet form.

[From the Boston Post.]

In another part of our paper will be found a reply to Senator Douglas' argument in favor of popularsovereignty, published in Harper's Magazine. It is written with great perspicuity and power, and, in ourhumble opinion, exposes very clearly the fallacious reasoning of the Senator in essential points.

[From the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer.]

Senator Douglas on Judge Black. —Senator Douglas' Wooster (Ohio) speech is in very bad taste, aswell as bad principles. He stigmatizes Judge Black's pamphlet as a black pamphlet of “malignantfalsehoods,” “palpable falsehoods,” “misrepresentations,” and “untruths,” emanating from a “gangof anonymous conspirators” Such language from a Senator of the United States, and candidatefor the presidency, applied to the Attorney General of the United States, is well calculated to bringcontempt upon a country whose press and people permit such language to pass unrebuked. Thatthe pamphlet of Judge Black has not merited such epithets, we can appeal to the Southern people,whose press has almost universally published and commended it to its readers. We know of nopolitical essay more courteous in language and style, or more polite in reference to its adversary.

The arguments employed by Judge Black were worthy of more polite language, as much from theendorsement they have received from the press and people of the country as from their inherentweight. To stigmatize as “falsehoods” a pamphlet that has received the commendation of the press,is to charge, by implication, those who have aided in its circulation with abetting a falsehood.

Judge Douglas must learn that in a free country men have the right to differ from him withoutrendering themselves liable to the charge of “falsehood.” He will never recommend his principles


by the exhibition of such manners; for we believe both to be equally repugnant to the Americanpeople. A gentleman ceases not to be a gentleman because he is a candidate for the Presidency; andwhen advancement is sought by denouncing grave political papers emanating from high officials as“falsehoods” such advancement will never be obtained.

Such unmerited denunciations tend to strengthen rather than impair the force of Judge Black'spamphlet. All rules of propriety would not have been violated if argument and reason could haveaccomplished the overthrow of the pamphlet. Denunciation and epithets are weapons usedwhen argument and reason will not serve. He who gives precedence to the former over the latterevidences the weakness rather than the strength of his position. We, therefore, regard the Woosterspeech as far more objectionable than the Harper essay, for it contains the same principles and is inmuch worse taste.

13

[From the Philadelphia Argus.]

Judge Black's Annihilation of the Douglas Squatter Sovereignty. —Never within our recollection dowe remember such a sensation to have been produced by any State paper as that which is nowvibrating from one extremity of this land to the other, in consequence of the document emanating“from the pen of Judge Black, Attorney General of the United States, in answer to the manifesto ofStephen A. Douglas in Harper's Magazine. ” From the cold and bleak North to the warm and sunnySouth, and from the Atlantic washed East to the far-off Pacific on the West, one universal shout isringing out that the Little Giant of political warfare has been utterly and irretrievably overthrown bythe ponderous and irresistible blows of this more modest but all powerful Achilles of the Democratichost. To the people of Pennsylvania nothing was necessary to come from the master mind of theirdistinguished cabinet officer to tell them of his greatness—here he is known. To the people ofthe Union his herculean intellectual powers were not known as with us, but at a single bound hehas placed himself in the fore-front of the intellect and statesmanship of the nation; and from athousand presses of all opinions, parties, and creeds, the same note is sounding of well-meritedtribute to this able defender of the rights of the people and the States and the Constitution of theUnion. Dwelling not in the labyrinths and mazes of metaphysical abstractions and mysteries thatconfound and bewilder the reader in the special pleading and clap-trap by which Judge Douglasseeks to deceive and humbug the people, he comes directly at the subject as a master mind would,and, by the plainest, clearest, and most convincing language, throws open the whole matter to theglare of the noonday light and makes it so plain and simple that the veriest child in governmentalpolicy may understand it. He uses no superfluous words—he attempts no mystification—be deals inno abstractions—but coolly and calmly he unravels the whole subject, and shows the web by whichthe wily Senator would entangle the people. Throughout the whole argument you are struck with


the plain, blunt, and forcible style of the author; never for one moment losing sight of his subject,and never for an instant forgetting the courtesies due a distinguished opponent, or the dignity ofcharacter which adorns himself. From its commencement to its close you are enchained by its powerand beauty, and you rise from its perusal with the irresistible conviction that it is the unanswerableargument of a man conscious of his knowledge of the subject, of his power to lay it bare, and whofeels that he is right. How different is its tone, how deferential and respectful to his antagonist,when compared with the ill-tempered and violent remarks of Senator Douglas upon it at Wooster.No better proof could have been given of its power and conclusiveness than this public exhibitionof the ill-concealed chagrin and desperation of the Senator from Illinois. Maddened beyond allconception must he have been to have so far forgotten himself, his position, and the position of hisdistinguished commentator, as to apply a nick-name to a high cabinet officer of the United States,and in the most ungentlemanly manner and with the most vulgar language and personalities toattempt to decry the author of his overthrow. Personal abuse in argument is the unfailing sign ofdefeat; no true gentleman ever resorts to it at any time, and no man does it until he is no longerable to sustain himself in argument. We could have wished, for the credit of our nation and for thecredit of Mr. Douglas himself, who in days gone by has established a reputation as a ready andpowerful debater, that he should not have exhibited this almost disgraceful weakness, severelyinjurious to him both personally and politically, as it must surely be. It cannot harm Judge Black, butis only calculated to place him, by contrast, in a still more elevated position before the Americanpeople; his demolition of the monster effort of the Senator had placed him high in the temple offame; this public acknowledgment by the Senator that he has been defeated puts the distinguishedPennsylvanian in the front rank of the fight.

[From the Southern (Ala.) Era]

Stephen A. Douglas a Gangrenous Member of the Democratic Party —* * * * Judge Douglas has longsince forfeited the confidence of the Democratic party, and deserves to be thrust from its bosom.It is true that from the incipiency of his treachery he has disclaimed every intention to abandonthe Democratic party; but there was not the least occasion for these loud protestations on the partof the crafty dissembler. No one suspected that be designed to leap at once into the ranks of theBlack Republican party. If he had but ventured upon that decisive step he would have created withinhimself an eternal incapability of harm either to the South or the Democratic party.

We hold that Douglas in his recent speeches, and in his Harper manifesto, has set forth principleswhich strike at the foundation of Southern rights, and pierce the vitals of the Democratic party.Hence we deny that he has any claim to a position in the ranks of the Democracy; and as anexponent of Democratic principles. The force of his example will seduce other members of the party


from its true faith, and the infection of his heresy will prove destructive to the purity and vigor ofthe Democratic organization in the South. A leprous limb may corrupt the entire body; but let theoffending member be amputated, and the the whole system may be restored to health. Such is theinjunction of Scripture, and such the maxim of common sense.

[From the Lexington (Ky.) Statesman.]

It is said Judge Douglas openly denounces the author of the article in the Constitution reviewing hismagazine essay. Judge Black is generally understood to be the writer. The review was courteousand entirely parliamentary. A denunciation of the author, if personal, seems to us in bad taste andunprovoked. An argumentative reply to its logic and conclusions would be more appropriate thanwanton, personal reflections upon the writer.

[From the Memphis Dem.) Avalanche.]

Black on Douglas —In his last Ohio speech, made at Wooster, in that State, on the 10th inst., SenatorDouglas is reported to have indulged in many bitter personal denunciations of Judge Black, thereputed author of the admirable reply to his magazine essay on squatter sovereignty. Judge B'sarticle is acknowledged, on all hands, to be as remarkable for its fairness and high-toned courtesyas for its great power and ability, and in assailing its author as he has done, Senator Douglas onlyproves that he feels the force of its calm, dignified and thorough exposure of his heresies, and is fullyconscious of his utter inability to meet and repel them by argument and reason. But this report topersonal denunciation and blustering bullyism will not avail the distinguished Senator. Argumentscannot be met nor positions overthrown in that way; and the only effert of it will be to render himridiculous, and convince the world that he feels himself effectually driven to the wall by the powerand ability of his adversary.

14

[From the Philadelphia Morning Pennsylvanian.]

An Overthrow to Territorial Sovereignty. —We lay before our readers this morning a clear anddispassionate refutation of the views of Senator Douglas on the popular sovereignty question Thisarticle appeared in the Constitution of Saturday evening, and is said by the New York Herald—uponwhat authority we are not informed—to be the production of the Attorney General, Mr. Black If thisbe so, the views and arguments of this able paper are recommended to the careful and thoughtfulmen of the country, not alone by reason of his position, but more from those distinguished talentsand ability which have placed him among the leading jurists of the nation.


The reader will not fail to be impressed with the comprehensive and unselfish tone of thisdocument. It most completely overthrows all sectional, local, or restricted interpretations of theConstitution and of congressional legislation, and erects in their stead those practical, commonsense views, which must be held by every statesman who has not a personal ambition to warp andmould his opinions on the taking questions of the day.

We should have been glad to have published the Douglas magazine article, of which this is arefutation, if we had obtained permission from the copyright owners, in order that our readerscould now compare one with the other; but this was not permitted to the Democratic papersof the country, and of course we could not have the appearance of voluntarily competing witha Republican paper, the New York Times, which published it “by permission of the proprietors.”However, those who have not had the privilege of reading the Douglas manifesto need be under nofear of misapprehending its purport. The three propositions upon which its whole argument is basedare quoted in full, and followed by an argument so clear, full and logical that all which was writtenby Mr. Douglas in support of his first proposition, and against his assumed views of those opposedto him as stated in the second and third, is controverted and proved to be not only inconsistentwith Constitutional interpretation, but also inconsistent with the legislative action and opinionsof Mr. Douglas himself. In argumentation there can be no greater proof of weakness than a falsestatement of opposing views. Of this Mr. Douglas is at once conv cted, but, with that generosity oflanguage so characteristic of the strong mind, no advantage is taken by impugning the intentionsof the writer. But Mr. Douglas could not have been unguardedly mistaken in this matter. For nearlyten years he has made the Territorial questions his hobby. His whole career as a Senator has thisand scarcely any other distinguishing feature. He is, therefore, intimately acquainted with theviews of every distinguished man in the country, and when he stated that any respectable portionof the Democratic party “believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories,” hemust, of course, have known that he was trifling with opinions. Throughout the discussion of thisslavery topic, from 1826 to the present day, that belief has never prevailed even among the mostrabid slavery propagandists. Such a view would have made the Missouri Compromise so plainlyunconstitutional that it could not have secured the sanction of a respectable lawyer in the Union;and that famous declaration of the Kansas Nebraska act, that “it is not the intent or meaning of thisact to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to prohibit it therefrom,” would have been atonce declared to be a stupid nulity. How could Congress legislate to prohibit or establish that whichwas established by the Constitution? The use of this assertion was therefore intended to misleadthe mind from the true point, viz: “the Constitution regards as sacred and inviolable all the rightswhich a citizen may legally acquire in a State,” and continues its protection to him when settling inthe territory of the United States, where it is the paramount law until superseded by the local law ofa State Constitution. Had Mr. Douglas stated this to be the view of his opponent in the Democratic


party, he could not have filled nineteen pages of Harper's Magazine in an attempt to prove it unten?ble.

Having thoroughly and irrefutably disposed of his erroneous statements of opposing views, as wellas of the solecism that there is no law to protect that property in a Territory which is recognized asproperty in some of the States; or, in other words, having refuted the doctrine that a slaveholderon the borders of Missouri would lose his title to his slaves by moving into Nebraska, because theTerritorial laws could constitutionally do what Congress could not—viz: deprive a citizen of theUnited States of his property—the article passes by the historical parallelism of the manifesto,as irreconcilable with facts, in order to reach and expose the unsoundness of the real DouglasTerritorial dogma. It is upon his own doctrine that Mr. Douglas is most insecure, uncertain, andconfused. Evidently he has labored without success to reduce his views within the compass of aclear and comprehensive definition; that failure not being attributable to the want of ability in thewriter, must be attributed to the logical inconsistency of his premises and conclusions. It is an axiomthat any subject matter which is logically correct can be logically defined. Applying this rule to thefollowing dogma, we will find that it is utterly meaningless: “The Constitution neither establishes norprohibits slavery in the Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it.”

Now let us test this proposition by reducing it to a syllogistic formula.

The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories.

The people of a Territory are subject to and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, the people can constitutionally—that is, legally—establish or prohibit slavery.

Is this not a perfect non sequitur? Is it not a contradiction—a putting of the people superior to theConstitution to which they are subjected, and from which they derive all the powers they possess onthis and all other subjects of legislation. But let us make another syllogism.

The Constitution neither establishes or prohibits the Christian religion in the States or Territories.

The people of a Territory are subject to and controlled by the Constitution.

Therefore, the people of a Territory can constitutionally—that is, legally—establish or prohibit theChristian religion.

The premises are perfectly sound in each instance, and the conclusion must be correct in both orfalse in both. Now, it cannot be doubted that a Territorial Legislature is invested with no such power


as the establishing or the prohibiting of the Christian religion; yet this latter might be done withless violation of the Constitution than the former, since Congress is only prohibited from making “alaw respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” which, underthe Douglas rules of interpretation, would reserve that right to the people of the States, and hence,according to him, to the people of a Territory. Now read cannot for can in the last propositions ofboth syllogisms, and we will have a logical conclusion irrefutable by any course of 15 argumentbased upon the Constitution. This would have relieved Mr. Douglas from great labor and spared hiscountry from much confusion from this too much labored subject. When all is said that can be, itwill be found that the nation is being trifled with on a subject of no practical importance—on a deadissue—a question settled by legislation and judicial decision. That, in fact, the late speeches of Mr.Douglas himself most plainly acknowledge, when he intimates that this question is capable of one oftwo solutions; either withhold, says he, a territorial government until a sufficient number of peoplehave settled to be capable of forming a government themselves—that is, all settlers must remainwithout law until they can organize a State government, merely to make his doctrine hold good—or, that if the people legislate illegally, the Supreme Court will declare that legislation a nullity. Theseare his new points in his Columbus and Cincinnati speeches, and the country will see that he is buttrifling with its understanding at the expense of union and harmony, without a substantial end to beachieved or a constitutional right to be vindicated.

Documents

Territorial slavery question