The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume], November 11, 1859, Image 2

About The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865

Image provided by: Minnesota Historical Society; Saint Paul, MN

                
VOL. XI.—NO. 30.
Wliy wa§ Senator Douglas Excluded
from tlie Committee on Territories.
LETTER FROM SENATOR DOUGLAS TO CALI
FORNIA.
!,) the Editors of the Motional, San Francisco, Cali
r'trnia.
1 am indebted to the kindness of some un
known friend for a copy of the National of
the lGth July, containing a speech of the
lion. William M. Gwiu, at Grass Valley,
with black lines drawn around certain pas
sages, lor the purpose, I presume, of direct
; iug my attention especially to them. Inas
much as your paper is the medium through
which the assault on the political position
which 1 have maintained in the Senate, and
before the people of Illinois, was conveyed
j to the public, justice requires that you should
publish such reply as my friends in Califor
nia have a right, under the circumstances,
to expect. Hence I address this letter to
you.
Alter the defeat of the Lecompton Con-
I stitution in Congress, and the rejection by
Kansas ol the propositions contained in the
“ English bill,” all who felt a deeper inter
est in the peace and repose of the country
! than in the advancement of particular in
dividuals, entertained the hope that the strife
had ended, and instead of new and odious
tests of political lidelity to distract and di
vide, we should witness mutual desires and
mutual exertions to present a united Democ
racy. If this just expectation has been dis
appointed. and the Democratic party, bur
i dened with new tests and demoralized by
selfish rivalries and dissensions, have been
defeated in States where they should and
otherwise might have been successful, the
responsibility must rest imon those who pro
duced the unfortunate results. I shall not
follow the example of these disturbers of
Democratic harmony by reviving past issues
and indulging in eliminations and recrimi
nations ; nor shall 1 stop to defend my ac
tion on the Lecompton question from their
assaults. lam entirely content to rest my
vindication on the verdict which the people
of Illinois have already recorded, and trust to
that enlightened public opinion of the whole
country which will, sooner or later, declare
with emphasis and power that no constitu
tion or institution should ever be forced up
on a reluctant people, whether State or Ter
-1 ritory.
Passing from his review of the Lecompton
1 issue, Mr. Gwin said in his speech 1 at Grass
Valley :
“ Near the close of the last session of Con
gress, a debate was sprung upon the Senate up
on the question of Territorial sovereignty. We
had long expected such a discussion, because
it was the duty of Mr. Douglas to give his rea
sons to the Senate and to the country for the
line of policy he had considered it his duty to
adopt in the Senatorial canvass in Illinois. The
doctrines he had avowed in his Freeport speech
had been condemned in the Senate by his remo
val from the Chairmanship of the Territorial
Committee of that body, and it was expected
that he would defend the position he had taken
and give ample time to those who differed from
him to give the reasons that had influenced
them in removing him from Jiat important po
sition at the head of the Territor al Committee
; he had filled for so many years in the Senate.
But for reasons satisfactory to himself, he did
not address until near the close of
the session, when there was no time to give the
subject that full consideration it deserved He
had asserted in his Freeport speech that a Ter
ritorial Legislature could lawfully by non-ac'ion
or hostile legislation exclude Slavery from such
Territory. Having always opposed this doc
trine. I briefly announced my previous opinions,
and declared that if such construction had been
given to the Kansas-Nebraska act when it was
tinder consideration in Congress in 1854, I
| should have voted against it.”
Why was it “ the duty of Mr. Douglas
to give his reasons to the Senate, and to the
country for the line of policy be had con-
I sidered it bis duty to adopt in the Senatorial
canvass in Illinois ?” I had already given
my “reasons” at Freeport, and at more
than a hundred places during the canvass,
aud had been triumphantly sustained by the
voice of the people und the vote of the Leg
islature, against the combined forces of the
Black Republicans and Federal office
holders, and their allies und supporters in
aud out of the Senate. VVhy, 1 repeat, was
it my duty to give my reasons to the Senate?
The Senate is not my constituency. I ant
not responsible to the Senate, nor did any
Senator venture to demand reasons tor the
line ol policy which I have felt it niy duty
to pursue at home, in a State canvass
Hut, if it were my duty, as Mr. Gwin
states, to give my “ reason* to the Senate ”
for toe course winch I pursued in the can
vass, it necessarily follows, that it was the
duty of the Senate to hear them before they
j proceeded, as he alleges, to condemn me by
my removal, during my absence, from the
Chairmanship of Territories, which I have
held for eleven years, and lo which I was
re-elected alter my speech against the Le
-1 compton Constitution.
The country is now informed, f</r the first
tune, that 1 was removed from the post of
Chairman of the Committee on Territories
because of the sentiments contain'd in my
j “ Freeport speech.” To use the language
of Mr. Gwiu, tiik doctrinks he had
avowed in his Freeport speech had been
condemned in the Senate, by hts removal
from the Chairmanship of the Territorial
Committee of that body. The country will
bear in mind this testimony, that 1 was not
removed because of any personal uukindness
or hostility ; nor in consequence of my
course on the Lecomptun question, or in
respect to the Administration; but that it
was intended as a condemnation of the doc
trines avowed in my “ Freeport speech.”
The only position taken in my “ Freeport
speech,” which I have ever seen criticised or
controverted, may be stated in a single sen
tence, and was in reply to an interrogatory
propounded by my competitor for the Sen
ate : That “ the Territorial Legislature could
lawfully exclude Slavery, either by non-action
or unfriendly legislation." This opinion was
not expressed by me at Freeport for the
first time. I have expressed the same opin
ion often in the Senate, freely and frequent
ly in the presence of those Senators who, as
Mr. Gwin testifies, removed me “ from the
Chairmanship of the Committee on Territo
ries ” ten years after they knew that 1 held
the opinion and would never surrender it.
I could fill many columns of the National
with extracts of speeches made by me dur
ing the discussion of the Compromise meas
ures in 1850, and in defence of the principle
embodied in those measures in 1851 and
1852, and in the discussion of the Kansas
Nebraska bill in 1854, and of the Kansas
difficulties aud the Topeka revolutionary
movements in 1856, in all of which I ex
pressed the same opinion and defended the
same position which was assumed in the
“ Freeport Speech.” 1 will not, however,
burdeu your columns or weary your readers
with extracts of all these speeches, but will
refer you to each volume of the Congres
sional Globe for the last ten years, where
you will find them fully reported. If you
cannot conveniently procure the Congres
sional Globe, I refer you to an editorial arti
cle in the Washington Union of October
5, 1856, which, it was reported, received the
sanction of the President of the United
States previously to its publication, a few
weeks after my “ Freeport Speech ” had
been delivered. The Union made copious
extracts of my speeches in 1850 and 1854,
to prove that in each of those periods I held
the same opinions which I expressed at
Freeport in 1858, and, consequently, de
clared that I never was a good Democrat,
much less sound on the Slavery question
when I advocated the Compromise measures
of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska bill in
1854.
In the article referred to, the Union said
“ We propose to show that Judge Douglas’
action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with espe
cial reference to the announcement of doctrine
and programme which was made at Freeport
The declaration at Freeport was, that, * in his
opinion, the people can, by lawful means, ex
clude slavery from a Territory before, it comes
in as a State ; ’ and he declared that his com-
Eetitor had ‘heard him argue the Nebraska
ill on that principle all over Illinois in 1854,
and 1856, and had no excuse to pretend to
have any doubt on that subject.’ ”
The Union summed up the evidence fur
nished by my speeches in the Senate in 1850
and 1854, that the “ Freeport speech ” was
consistent with my former course, with this
emphatic declaration:
“Thus we have shown that precisely the po
sition assumed by Judge Douglas at Freeport
had been maintained by him in 1850, in the de
bates and votes on the Utah and New-Mexican
bills, and in 1854 on the Kansas-Nebraska bill;
and have shown that it was owing to his oppo
sition that clauses depriving the Territorial
Legislatures of the power of excluding slavery
from their jurisdiction were not expressly in
serted in tho-e measures.”
The evidence thus presented by the Wash
ington Union —the evidence of an open
enemy—is so full and conclusive, that I have
uniformly advocated for ten years past the
same principles which I avowed at Freeport,
that I cannot refrain from asking you to
spread the entire article before your readers,
an appendix, if you choose, to this letter.
The question whether the people of the
Territories should be permitted to decide
the slavery question for themselves the same
as all other rightful subjects of legislation,
was thoroughly discussed and definitely set
tled in the adoption of the Compromise
measares of 1850. The Territorial bills, as
originally reported by the Committee on
Territories, extended the authority of the
Territorial Legislation to all rightful sub
jects of legislation consistent with the con
stitution, without excepting African slavery.
Modified by the Committee of Thirteen,
they conferred power on the Territorial Le
gislature over all rightful subjects of legisla
tion except African slavery. This distinct
question, involving the power of the Terri
torial Legislature over the subject of Afri
can slavery, was debated in the Senate from
the Btli of May until the 31st of July, 1850,
when the limitation was stricken out by a
vote of yeas 33 nays 19, and the Territorial
Legislature authorized to legislate on all
rightful subjects, without excepting African
sh.very. In this form, and upon this prin
ciple, tne compromise measures of 1850 were
enacted.
When I returned to my home in Chicago,
at the end of the session of Congress, alter
the adoption of the measures of adjustment,
the excitement was intense. The City
Council had passed a resolution nullifying
the Fugitive Slave Act, and releasing the
police from all obligations to obey the law
or assist in its execution. Amidst this fu
rious excitement, and surrounded by revolu
tionary movements, I addressed the assem
bled populace. My speech, in which I
defended each and all of the compromise
measures of 1850, was published at the time,
and spread broadcast throughout the coun
try. I herewith send you a copy of that
speech, in which you will fiud that I said :
“These measures are predicated on the great
SAINT PAUL, FRIDAY NOVEMBER 11, 1859.
fundamental principle that every people ought
to possess the right of forming aud regulating
their own internal concerns aud domestic insti
tutions in their own way. It was supposed
that those of our fellow-citizens who emigrated
to the shores of the Pacific and to our other
territories were as capable of self-government
as their neighbors and kindred whom they left
behind them; and there was no reason for be
lieving that they have lost any of their intelli
gence or patriotism by the wayside, while
crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also
believed, that after their arrival in the country,
when they had become familiar with its topo
graphy, climate, productions and resources,
aud had connected their destiny with it, they
were fully as competent to judge for themselves
what kind of laws and institutions were best
adapted to their condition and interests, as we
were, who never saw the country, and knew
very little about it. To question their compe
tency to do this, was to deny their capacity for
self-government. If they have the requisite in
telligence and honesty to be entrusted with the
enactment of laws for the government of white
men, 1 know of no reason why they should not
be deemed competent to legislate for the negro.
If they are sufficiently enlightened to make
laws for the protection of life, liberty aud
property—of morals and education—to deter
mine the relation of husband and wife, of pa
rent and child—l am not aware that it requires
any higher degree of civilization to regulate the
affairs of master and servant. These things
are all confided by the Constitution to each
State to decide for itself; and 1 know of no
reason why the same principle should not be
extended to the Territories.”
Th's speech was laid on the desk of every
member of the Senate, at the opening of
the second session of the 'Thirty-first Con
gress, in December, 1850, when with a full
knowledge of my opinions upon the territor
ial question, 1 was unanimously nominated
in the Democratic caucus, and re-elected by
the Senate Chairman of the Committee on
Territories. From that time to this I have
spoken the 3ame sentiments, and vindicated
the same positions in debate in the Senate ;
and have been re-elected Chairman of the
Committee on Territories at each session of
Congress, until last December, by the unani
mous voice of the Democratic party in
caucus, and in the Senate, with my opinions
on this territorial question well known to
and well understood by every Senator. Yet,
Mr. Gwin testifies that I was condemned
and deposed by the Senate for the utterance
of opinions in 1858, which were put on re
cord year after year, so plainly and unequiv
ocally, as to leave neither the Senate nor
the country in doubt. Thus does Mr.
Gwin, iu his eagerness to be my public ac
cuser, speak to his own condemnation, for
he voted for me session after session, with my
opinions, the same that I spoke at Freeport,
staring him in the face.
On the 4th of January, 1854,1 reported
the Nebraska bill, and, as Chairman of the
Committee on Territories, accompanied it
with a special report, in which I stated dis
tinctly “that all questions pertaining to
Slavery in the Territories, and in the new
States to be formed therefrom, are to be left
to the decision of the people residing therein,
by their appropriate representatives to be
chosen by them for that purpose .” And, that
the bill proposed “ to carry these proposi
tions and principles into practical operation
in the precise language of the Compromise
Measures of 1850.” The Kansas-Nebraska
Act, as it stands on the statute book, does
define the power of the Territorial Legisla
ture “ in the precise language of the Com
promise Measures of 1850.” It gives the
Legislature power over all rightful subjects
of legislation consistent with the Constitu
tion, without excepting African Slavery.
During the discussion of the measure it was
suggested that it was necessary to repeal
ti e Bth section of the act of the 6th of
March, 1850, called the Missouri Compro
mise, in order to permit the people to con
trol the slavery question, while they remained
in a territorial condition, and before they
became a State of the Union. That was the
object and only purpose for which the
Missouri Compromise was repealed.
On the night of the 3d of March, 1854,
in my closing speech on the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill, a few hours before it passed
the Senate, I said : “It is only for the pur
pose of carrying out this great, fundamental
principle of self government, that the bill
renders the Bth section of the Missouri act
inoperative and void." The article of the
Washington Union, of Oct. 3, 1858, to
which I have referred, quotes this and other
passages of my speech on that occasion, to
prove that the author of the Nebraska Bill
framed it with express reference in confer
ring on the Territorial Legislature power to
control the Slavery question; and further,
that I boldly avowed the purpose at the
time in the presence of all the friends of the
bill, and urged its passage upon that ground.
I have never understood that Mr. Gwin, or
any other Senator who heard that speech
and voted for the bill the same night, ex
pressed any dissent or disapprobation of the
doctrines it announced. That was the time
for dissent and disapprobation ; that was
the time to condemn, if there were cause to
condemn, and not four or five years after.
The record furnishes no such evidence of
dissent or disapprobation ; nor does the
history of those times show that the Demo
cratic party in the North or in the South,
or in any portion of the country, repudiated
the fundamental principle upon which the
Kansas Nebraska act is founded, and pro
scribed its advocates and defenders.
If Mr. Gwin did not understand the Kan
sas-Nebraska bill when it was under con
sideration, according to its plain meaning,
as explained and defended by its authors
INTENTIONAL DUPLICATE EXP
and supporters, it is not the fault of those
who did understand it precisely as I inter
preted it at Freeport, and as the country
understood it in the Presidential canvass of
1856. Mr. Buchanan, and leading members
of his Cabinet, at all events, understood the
Kansas-Nebraska act in the same sense in
which it was understood and defended at
the time of its passage. Mr. Buchanan, in
his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomina
tion, affirmed that “legislation is founded
upon principles as ancient as free govern
ment itself, and in accordance with them
has simply declared that the people of a
Territory, like those of a State, shall decide
whether Slavery shall or not exist within t heir
limits.” Gen. Cass, now Secretary of State,
has always sustained, from the day he
penned the “Nicholson letter” to this, that
the people of the Territoiies have a right to
decide the Slavery question for themselves,
whenever they please. In 1856, on the 2d
day of July, referring to the Kansas-Ne
braska act, he said : “I believe the original
act gave the Territorial Legislature of Kan
sas full power to exclude or allow Slavery.”
Mr. Toucey, the Secretary of the Navy,
interpreted the act in the same way, and on
the same occasion in the Senate, said: “The
original act recognizes in the Territorial
Legislature all the power which they can
have, subject to the Constitution, and sub
ject to the organic law of the Territory.”
Mr. Cobb, the Secretary of the Treasury, in
a speech at West Chester, Pennsylvania, on
the 19th of September, 1856, advocating
Mr. Buchanan’s election to the Presidency,
said : “The Government of the United
States should not force the institution of
Slavery upon the people either of the Ter
ritories or of the States, against the will of
the people, though my voice could bring
about that result. I stand upon the princi
ple ; the people of my State decide it for
themselves, you for yourselves, the people of
Kansas for themselves. That is the Consti
tution, and I stand by the Constitution.”
And, again ; in the same speech he said :
“Whether they” (the people of a Territory)
“decide it by prohibiting it, according to
the one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws
to protect it, as contended for by the other
party, is immaterial. The majority of the
people by the action of the Territoiial Leg
islature will decide the question ; and all
must abide the decision when made.”
Here we find the doctrines of the Freeport
speech, including “ non action” and “ un
friendly legislation” as a lawful and proper
mode for the exclusion of Slavery from a
Territory, clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and
the election of Mr. Buchanan advocated on
those identical doctrines. Mr. Cobb made
similar speeches during the Presidential
canvass in other portions of Pennsylvania,
in Maine, Indiana and most of the Northern
States, and was appointed Secretary of the
Treasury by Mr. Buchanan, as a mark of
gratitude for the efficient services which had
been thus rendered. Will aoy Senator who
voted to remove me from the Chairmanship
of the Territorial Committee, for expressing
opinions for which Mr. Cobb, Mr. Toucey
and Gen. Cass were rewarded,pretend that he
did not know that they, or either of them,
had uttered such opinions when their nomi
nations were before the Senate ? lam sure
no Senator will make so humiliating a con
fession. Why then were those distinguished
gentlemen appointed by the President, and
confirmed by the Senate as Cabinet Ministers
if they were not good Democrats—sound on
the Slavery question, and faithful exponents
of the principles and creed of the party ? Is
it not a significant fact that the President
and the most distinguished and honored of
his cabinet should have been solemnly and
irrevocably pledgedjto this monstrous heresy
of “ Popular Sovereignty,” for asserting
which the Senate, by Mr. Gwin’s frank
avowal, condemned me to the extent of their
power?
It must be borne in mind, however, that
the President and members of the Cabinet
are not the only persons high in authority
who are committed to the principle of self
government in the Territories. The Hou.
John C. Breckinridge, the Vice President
of the United States, was a member of the
House of Representatives when the Kansas
Nebraska bill passed, and in a speech deliv
ered March 23,1854, said :
“ Among the many misrepresentations sent
to the country by some of the enemies of this
bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the
charge that it proposes to legislate slavery into
Kansas and Nebraska. Sir. if the bill contained
such a feature, it would not receive my vote.
The right to establish involves the correlative
right to prohibit, aud denying both, I would
vote for neither. * * The effect of the repeal
(of the Missouri Compromise) therefore, is nei
ther to establish nor to exclude, but to leave
the future condition of the Territories depend
ent wholly upon the action of the inhabitants,
subject only to such limitations as the Federal
Constitution may impose. * * It will be ob
served that the right of the people to regulate
in their own way all their domestic institu
tions is left wholly untouched, except whatever
is done must be done in accordance with the
Constitution, the supreme law for us all.”
Again, at Lexington, Ky., on the 9th of
June, 1856, in response to the congratula
tions ol his neighbors on his nomination for
tho Vice Presidency, Mr. Breckinridge said:
“Tue whole power of the Democratic orga
nization is pledged to the following proposi
tions : That Congress shall not interpose upon
this subject (slavery) in the States, in the Ter
ritories or in the District of Columbia ; that the
people of each Territory shall determine the
question for themselves, and be admitted into
the Union upon a footing of perfect equality
with the original States, without discrimination
on account of the allowance or prohibition of
slavery.”
Touching the power of the Territorial Le
gislature over the subject of slavery, the
Hon. James L. Orr, late Speaker of the
House of Representatives, on the 11th of
December, 1856, said :
“ Now with the Legislative authority of a
Territory is invested a discretion to vote for or
against the laws. We think they ought to pass
laws in every Territory, when the Territory is
open to settlement, and slaveholders go there,
to protect slave property. But if they decline
to pass such laws, what is the remedy ? None,
bir. If the majority of the people ore opposed
to the institution, and if they do not desire it
engrafted upon their Territory, all they have to
do is simply to pass laws in the Territorial Le
gislature for its protection, and then it is as
well excluded as if the power was iuvested in
the Territorial Legislature to prohibit it.”
Mr. Stevens, of Georgia, In a speech in
the House of Representative, on the 17th of
February, 1854, said :
“The whole question of Slavery was to be
left to the people of the Territories, whether
North or South of 30 deg- 30 min., or any other
line. * * * It was based upon the
truly republican and national policy of taking
this disturbing element out of Congress, and
leaving the whole question of Slavery in the
Territories to the people there to settle it for
themselves. Aud it is in vindication of that
new principle—then established for the first
time in the history of our government—in the
year 1850, the middle of the Nineteenth Cen
tury. that we, the friends of the Nebraska bill,
whether from the North or South, now call up
on this House and the country to carry out, in
good faith, and give etfect to the spirit and in
tent of those important measures of territorial
legislation.”
Again, on the 17th of Jan. 1856, he said:
“l am willing that the Territorial Legislature
may act upon the subject when and how they
may think proper.’ 4
Mr. Benjamin of Louisiana, in a speech in
the Senate on the 25 th of May, 1854, on the
Nebraska bill, said :
“We find, then, that this principle of the in
dependence and self-government of the people
in the distant Territories of the Confederacy,
harmonizes all these conflicting opinions, and
enables us to banish from the halls of Congress
another fertile source of discontent and excite
ment.”
On the 15th day of February, 1854, Mr,
Badger, of N. C. said of the Nebraska bill:
“It submits the whole authority to the Terri
tory to determine for itself. That, in my
judgment, is the place where it ought to be
put. If the people of the Territories choose to
exclude Slavery, so far from considering it as
a wrong done to me or my constituent, I shall
not complain of it. It is their business.”
Again, on the 25th of March, 1854, one
day before the passage of the bill through
the Senate, Mr. Badger said :
“But with regard to that question we have
agreed—some of us because we thought it the
only right mode, and some of us because we
think it a right mode, and under existi lg cir
cumstances the preferable mode—to confer
this power upon the people of ihe Territories. ”
On the same day, Mr. Butier, of South
Carolina, said :
“Now, I believe under the provisions of this
bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico bills,
there will be a perfect carte blanche given to the
Territorial Legislature to legislate as they may
think proper.” ******
“lam willing to trust them. I have been will
ing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico,
where the Mexican law prevail, and I am will
ing to trust them in Kansas and Nebraska,
where the French law, according to the idea
of the gentleman, may possibly be revived.”
In the House of Representatives, on the
25th of June, 1856, Mr. Samuel A. Smith,
ofTeonessee, said :
“For twenty years this question has agitated
Congress and the country without a single
beneficial result. They resolved that it should
be transferred from those halls, that all uncon
stitutional restrictions should be removed, and
that the people should determine for them
selves the character ol their local and domes
tic institutions under which they were to live,
with precisely the same rights, but no greater,
than tnose enjoyed by the old thirteen States.”
And, further :
"In 1851, the same question was presented,
when the necessity arose for the organization
of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,
and the identical principle was applied for its
solution-’'
In the Senate, on the 25th of February,
1854, Mr. Dodge, of lowa, (now Demo
cratic candidate for Governor ot that State,)
said :
“And, sir. honesty and.consistency with our
course in 1850. demand that those of us who
supported the Compromise Measures should
zealously support this bill, because it is a re
turn to the sound principle of leav.ng to the
people of tde Territories the right of determin
ing for themselves their domestic institutions.”
And in the House of Representatives, on
the 28th December, 1856, Mr. George W.
Jones of Tennessee, said :
“Then, sir, you may call it by what name
you please—non-intervention, squatter sover
eignty, or popular sovereignty. It is, sir, the
power of the people to govern themselves, and
they and they alone, should exercise it, in my
opinion, as well while in a Territorial condition
as in the position of a State.”
And, again, in the same speech, he said:
“I believe that the great principle—the right
of the people in the Territories, as well a=> in
the States, to form and regulate their domestic
institutons in their own way—is clearly and un
equivocally embodied in the Kansas Nebraska
Act, and if it is not. it should have been. Be
lieving that it was the living vital principle of
the act, I voted for it. These are my views,
honestly entartained, and will be defended.”
I could fill your columns with extracts of
speeches of Senators and Representatives
from the North and the South, who voted
for the Kansas Nebraska Bill and support
ed Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency on
that distinct issue—thus showing, conclu
sively, that it was the general understanding
at the time, that the people of the Territo
ries, while they remained in a territorial
condition, were left perfectly free, under the
Kansas Nebraska act, to form and regulute
SURE
NEW SERIES-NO. 203.
all their domestic institutions, Slavery not
excepted in their own way—subject only to
the Constitution of the United States.
This is the doctrine of which Mr. Gwin
spoke, when he said :
“ To contend for the power—and a sovereign
power it is—of a territorial legislature to ex
clude by non-action or hostile legislation, is
pregnant with the mischiefs of never-eudiDg
agitation ot civil discord aud bloodv wars.”
*** * " *
“It is an absurd, monstrous and dangerous
theory, which demands denunciation from ev
ery patriot in the land ; and a profound sense
of my duty to you wonld not permit me to do
less than to offer this brief statement of my
views upon a question so vital to the welfare
of our common country.”
Why did not the same “ profound sense
ol duty ” to the people of California require
Mr. Gwin to denounce this “ absurd, mon
strous and dangerous theory ” when pro
nounced and enforced by Gen. Cass, in his
Nicholson letter in 1848, and in support of
the Compromise measures of 1850, and
thence repeated by that eminent statesman
at each session of Congress until 1857, when
Mr. Gwin voted for his confirmation as
Secretary of State? Why did not Mr.
Gwin obey the same sense of duty by de
nouncing James Buchanan as the Demo
cratic candidate for the Presidency, when
he declared in 1856, that “ the people of a
Territory, like those of a State, should de
cide for themselves whether Slavery shall or
shall not exist within their limits ? ” Why
did he not perform this imperative duty by
voting against Mr. Cobb, who made North
ern votes for Mr. Buchanan by advocating
this same “ absurd, monstrous and danger
ous theory of ‘ non action* and * unfriendly
legislation,’ ” when he was appointed Secre
tary of the Treasury ? And, in short, why
did he not prove his fidelity to a high sense
of duty by protesting against my selection
as Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on
Territories in the Democratic caucus by a
unanimous vote, at every session that he has
been a Senator, from 1850 to 1858, with a
full knowledge of my opinions? The infer
ence is that Mr. Gwin, from his remarks on
the “ Dred Scott Decision,” is prepared to
offer it as an excuse for thedisregard, for so
many years, of that profound sense of duty
which he owed to the people of California.
It may be that before the decision his mind
was not clear as to the sense of duty which
now moves him. Of that decision he said :
“In March, 1857, the Supreme Court decided
this question in all its various relations, in the
case of Dred Scott. That decision declares
that neither Congress nor a Territorial Leg
islature possess the power either to es
tablish or exclude Slavery from the Territory
and that it was a power which exclusively be
longed to the States ; that the people of a Ter
ritory can exercise this power for the first time
when they form a Constitution; that the rig*t
of the people of any State to Carry their slaves
into a common Territory of the United States
and hold them there during its existence as
such, was guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States; that it was a right which
could neither be subserted nor evaded, either
by non-action, by direct or indirect Congres
sional legislation, or by any law passed by a
Territorial Legislature.”
Surely, Mr. Gwin had never read the
opinion of the court in the case of “ Dred
Scott,” except as it has been perverted for
partisan purposes by newspapers, when he
undertook to expound it to the good people
of California. It so happens, that the court
did not decide any one of the propositions so
boldly and emphatically stated in the Grass
Valley speech ! The court did not declare,
that “ neither Congress nor a Territorial
Legislature possessed the power either to
establish or exclude slavery from a Terri
tory, and that it was a power which exclu
sively belonged to the States.” The court
did net declare, “ that the people of a Ter
ritory can exercise this power for the first
time when they come to form a constitu
tion.” The court did not declare “ that the
right of the people ot aoy State to carry
their slaves into a common Territory of the
United States, and hold them during its ex
istence as such, was guaranteed by the Con
stitution of the United States.” The court
did not declare “ that it was a right which
could neither be subverted or evaded, either
by non-action, by direct or indirect Congres
sional legislation, or by aDy law passed by
a Teiritorial Legislature.” Neither the de
cision nor the opinion of the court affirms
any one ot those propositions, either in
express terms or by fair legal intendment.
The version of the “Dred Scott Decision”
had its origin in the untortunate Lecornp
ton controversy, and is one of the many po
litical heresies to which it gave birth.
There ure other portions of Mr. Gwin’s
speech which are equally open to just criti
cism and unwarranted by the facts to which
they relate ; but I retrain from commenting
upon them, as I prefer to confine myself to
those points upon which my political action,
in common with that of a large majority of
the Democratic party, has been unjustly as
sailed before the people of < ’alifornia.
In faithful compliance with the pledges,
creed and platform of the Democratic party,
I stand now as I did iu 1850, in 1854, and
in 1856, by the great cardinal principle that
under our political system, every distinct
political community, loyul to the constitu
tion and the Union, is entitled to all the
rights, privileges and immunities of self
government, in respect to their internal
polity and domestic institutions, subject
only to the Constitution of the United
States.
Respectfully, your obedient servant.
S. A. DOUGLAS.