Part 28

According to the claim now made, Slavery exists under the Constitution everywhere outside the States,--in other words, Slavery is National; whereas just the contrary is true. Everywhere outside the States Freedom must prevail; in other words, Freedom is National. Yes, Freedom is National, and Slavery Sectional. Read the Constitution, and tell me if it be not so. Surely, if a pretension so peculiar as that now set up could be found there, it would be plain to all, so that no man could question it. Like the Decalogue, it would be in positive language: “Thou shalt enslave thy brother man.” It would be left to no doubtful phrase or ambiguous words, but would stand forth in appalling certainty, a “darkness visible.” It would be stuck up, like Gessler’s hat in the marketplace, so that all could see it. But nothing is clearer than that in this well-considered instrument there is not one clause or word which maintains property in man, not one clause or word on which any such pretension can be founded. Wherever there is any imagined reference to slaves, it is at most only to their possible existence in States, “under the laws thereof”; and then their designation as “persons” shows, that, whatever may be their condition in the States, the Constitution does not regard them as “property.” Thank God, the Constitution does not contain the idea that man can be the property of man. It was the declared purpose of Mr. Madison to exclude this idea. So completely has this been done, that it is among boasts often made, that a stranger in a distant country or a future age, reading our Constitution, and having no other record of our history, would not know that any human being had ever been claimed as “property” within the limits of the Republic. The text, at least, of the Constitution is blameless. If men find Slavery there, it is only because they make the Constitution reflect their own souls.

And yet this pretension is now the shibboleth of a great political party; this is its single inspiration; this is its only principle; this is all its stock in trade; this is its very “breath of life.” To this base use has Democracy come. In voting for Mr. Breckinridge, you declare, first, that man can have property in his fellow-man, and, secondly, that such property is recognized by the Constitution of the United States. The soul recoils from both. But even if the first be true,--which I utterly deny,--it does not follow that such property is sanctioned in the Constitution.

* * * * *

Last in order of alphabet is the Douglas party, whose single cry is “Popular Sovereignty”; last also in character,--for who can respect what we know to be a deceit? The statesman founds himself on principles; sometimes it is his office to frame expedients; but Popular Sovereignty, as now put forward, is not a principle,--oh, no! not even an expedient; it is nothing but a device, a pretext, an evasion, a dodge, a trick, in order to avoid the commanding question, whether Slavery shall be prohibited in the Territories. That is all.

All hail to Popular Sovereignty in its true glory! This is the grand principle, first announced in the Declaration of Independence, which is destined to regenerate the world. It is embodied in those famous words, adopted by the Republican Convention at Chicago, that among the unalienable rights of all men are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and that “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, _deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_.” These are sacred words, full of life-giving energy. Not simply national independence was here proclaimed, but also the primal rights of all mankind. Then and there appeared the Angel of Human Liberation, speaking and acting at once with heaven-born strength,--breaking bolts, unloosing bonds, and opening prison-doors,--always ranging on its mighty errand, wherever there are any, no matter of what country or race, who struggle for rights denied,--now cheering Garibaldi at Naples, as it had cheered Washington in the snows of Valley Forge,--and especially visiting all who are down-trodden, whispering that there is none so poor as to be without rights which every man is bound to respect.

“The affrighted gods confessed their awful lord; _They dropped the fetters_, trembled, and adored.”[170]

None so degraded as to be beneath its beneficent reach, none so lofty as to be above its restraining power; while before it Despotism and Oligarchy fall on their faces, like the image of Dagon, and the people everywhere begin to govern themselves. Such is the Popular Sovereignty proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence.

But the Great Declaration, not content with announcing certain rights as unalienable, and therefore beyond the control of any government, still further, restrains the sovereignty, which it asserts, by simply declaring that the United States have “full power to do all acts and things which independent states may OF RIGHT do.” Here is a well-defined limitation upon Popular Sovereignty. The dogma of Tory lawyers and pamphleteers--put forward to sustain the claim of Parliamentary omnipotence, and vehemently espoused by Dr. Johnson in his “Taxation no Tyranny”--was, openly, that _sovereignty_ is in its nature _illimitable_, precisely as is now loosely professed by Mr. Douglas for his handful of squatters. But this dogma is distinctly discarded in the Declaration, and it is frankly proclaimed that all _sovereignty_ is subordinate to the rule of _Right_. Mark, now, the difference. All existing governments at that time, even the local governments of the Colonies, stood on _Power_, without limitation. Here was a new government, which, taking its place among the nations, announced that it stood only on _Right_, and claimed no sovereignty inconsistent with _Right_. Such, again, is the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration of Independence.

And yet this transcendent principle is now degraded into a “dodge,” and the sacred name of Popular Sovereignty is prostituted to cover the claim of a master over his slave. It is urged that a handful of squatters may rightfully decide this claim, and the time-honored traditional power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories is denied or voted down. To protect this “villany,” as John Wesley would call it, the right of the people to govern themselves is invoked,--forgetful that this divine right can give no authority to enslave others, that even the people are not omnipotent, and that never do they rise so high as when, recognizing the everlasting laws of Right, they bend to the behests of Justice.

Though bearing the name of Mr. Douglas, and now peddled through the country by him, this contrivance is not of his invention. It comes from an older head. It first showed itself in the Nicholson Letter of 1847, by which General Cass, as Presidential candidate, sought to avoid the Wilmot Proviso. Laborious, studious, exemplary in private life, and fertile in pretexts, this venerable character has afforded the formula by which men have voted for Slavery, while making professions for Freedom. He is author of the artifice--rejected by every Slave-Master, and rejected by every lover of Freedom, whose eyes are open--which, under the nickname of Squatter Sovereignty, has been the device of doughfaces, enabling them sometimes to deceive the public and sometimes even to deceive themselves. Owing to the peculiar condition of opinion at that time, not yet stiffened against the compromise of Human Rights, his very vacillation put him in harmony with the public, and gave him a commanding position. Once for the Wilmot Proviso, which asserted the power of Congress over the Territories, and then for a pretended Popular Sovereignty, which denied this power, he became the pendulum between Freedom and Slavery, and, thus swinging, imparted motion to a sham Democracy.

The device next showed itself on the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill; and here it became a trick, as appears by open confession of one of the parties to it,--and a trick it has continued ever since. It was proposed to repeal the old Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Territory, established as part of the Missouri Compromise. But instead of doing this openly and precisely, by simple words of repeal, language was invented to mystify the whole question. Then appeared that “little stump speech injected in the belly of the bill,” according to Colonel Benton, declaring that the intent was to leave the people “perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” As in the gray of the morning the fatal bill containing these words passed, General Cass, rising from his seat,--I remember well the scene,--exclaimed, “This is the triumph of Squatter Sovereignty!” The old Prohibition of Slavery was overthrown, and his Nicholson Letter was vindicated.

And now note well the trick. The Slave-Masters who voted for these words rejected with scorn the idea that the handful of squatters could exclude Slavery. According to them, Slavery went with the Constitution, and was beyond the control of squatters. But formal assertion of this dogma would have caused trouble, and it was accordingly disguised in these familiar words,--“subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a recent speech, lets us behind the scenes. He tells, that, at a caucus of Senators, “both wings of the Democracy agreed that each should maintain its particular theory before the public,--one side sustaining Squatter Sovereignty, and the other Protection to Slavery in the Territories, but pledging themselves to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, whatever it might be.” Such was the secret conspiracy, concealed for a long time from the public, and only recently revealed. And Mr. Douglas was a party to it.

Had the Popular Sovereignty of Mr. Douglas been a reality and not a sham, had it been a sincere recognition of popular rights instead of a trick to avoid their recognition, he could not have been party to such deception. But how was the fact? While professing Popular Sovereignty, what did his bill really confer upon the people? Not the right to organize their own government, determining for themselves its form and character; for all this was done by Act of Congress. Not the right to choose the Executive; for the Governor and all other officers in this department were sent from Washington, nominated by the President. Not the right to nominate the Judiciary; for the judges were also sent from Washington, nominated by the President. Not even the right completely to constitute the Legislature; for even this body was placed in many important respects beyond the popular control. Thus in each of the three great departments of State, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, is Popular Sovereignty disowned.

Search the “Congressional Globe” during the Nebraska debate, and you will see with what sincerity Mr. Douglas guarded the much vaunted rights of the people. Mr. Chase moved to allow the people to elect their Governor and other officers. On the vote by ayes and noes, the champion of Popular Sovereignty voted _No_. Mr. Chase, whose effort to unmask this hypocrisy was indefatigable, made another motion, which put Mr. Douglas still more to the test. After the words of alleged Popular Sovereignty in the bill, he moved to add, “under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery therein.” Here was a plain proposition. On the vote by ayes and noes, Mr. Douglas and his associates again voted _No_. His recent excuse, put forth in his single peripatetic speech, is, that the proposition was not in the alternate,--that is, that it gave power only to exclude, and not to admit. But if he really favored it in that form, why not move to amend it by adding the power to admit, instead of voting against the whole proposition? It is clear that such an open and unequivocal declaration was not congenial with the game to be played.

The bill passed, and then came other opportunities to test the sincerity of the present knight-errant of Popular Sovereignty. Under its provisions commenced at once a race of emigration into the new Territories, and there Free Labor and Slave Labor grappled. Lovers of Freedom from the North were encountered by partisans of Slavery from the South, organized by Blue Lodges in Missouri, and incited from every part of the Land of Slavery. The officials of a government established under pretended safeguards of Popular Sovereignty all ranged themselves on the side of Slavery; or, if their allegiance became doubtful,--as in the case of Governor Reeder,--they were dismissed, and more available tools sent instead. I spare details. You cannot forget that winter and spring preceding the Presidential election of 1856, when we were alternately startled and stunned at tidings from Kansas, as a body of strangers from Missouri, entering in hundreds, forcibly seized the polls, and, under pretended forms of law, set up a Usurpation, which by positive legislation proceeded to establish Slavery there, and to surround it with a Code of Death. The atrocity of Philip the Second, when, by violence and through a “Council of Blood,” he sought to fasten the Inquisition upon Holland, was renewed. Invasion, rapine, outrage, arson, rape, murder, the scalping-knife, were the agents now employed; and to crown this prostration of popular rights, Lawrence, home of New England settlers, and microcosm of New England life, was burned to the ground by a company of profane and drunken ruffians stimulated from Washington.

What then was the course of the champion of Popular Sovereignty? Did he thunder and lighten? Did he come forward to defend those settlers, who had gone to Kansas under pretended safeguards of his bill? Oh, no! In the Senate he openly ranged himself on the side of their oppressors, mocked at their calamities, denounced them as “insurgents,” insulted their agents, and told them they must submit,--while the distant Emigrant Aid Society in Massachusetts was made the butt of his most opprobrious assaults. All this I myself witnessed.

Then came another scene, with which, owing to my enforced absence from the Senate, as an invalid, I have less personal familiarity; but it is known to all of you. The Senatorial election in Illinois was at hand, when Mr. Douglas suddenly discovered that Popular Sovereignty was something more than a name. He opposed the Lecompton Constitution; but my distinguished colleague [Mr. WILSON] will tell you that even there he was kept from barefaced apostasy only by the stern will and indomitable principle of the lamented Broderick, the murdered Senator from California.

Then came stump speeches and Senate speeches without number, and a magazine article, all to explain Popular Sovereignty. But this simple principle, which, in the light of the Declaration of Independence, and also in the light of reason, is plain enough, has been so twisted, turned, and befogged, now explained away and then explained back, now enlarged and then limited, now acknowledged and then denied, that I challenge any person to say with certainty in what, according to Mr. Douglas, it really consists.

At one time we find him declaring that “Slavery is the creature of local law, and not of the Constitution of the United States.” Good! Let him follow this to its natural conclusion, and no Republican asks more.

Then, at New Orleans, after his election to the Senate was secured, he says: “The Democracy of Illinois accept the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott as an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with that decision, we hold that slaves are property, and hence on an equality with all other kinds of property, and that the owner of a slave has the same right to move into a Territory and carry his slave property with him as the owner of any other property has to go there and carry his property.” Here is the extreme dogma of Slavery in full feather. Let him follow this to its natural conclusion, and no Breckinridge man could ask more.

At another time we find him declaring that “sovereign States have the right to make their own constitutions and establish their own governments, but that he has never claimed these powers for the Territories, nor has he ever failed to resist such claims, when set up by others.” How, then, under this theory, can Popular Sovereignty have any foothold in the Territories? It is clear that all Territorial legislation against Slavery must be invalid.

And then again, in another place, by roundabout language, he admits, that, according to the Dred Scott decision, which he declares that he “approves,” the people of a Territory cannot, by any legislation, confiscate slave property, or impair the “Constitutional right” of the master to this property in the Territory. With this limitation, pray, where, again, is Popular Sovereignty?

But elsewhere, as if to furnish something for the other side, he intimates a policy of inaction by the Territorial Legislature with regard to Slavery, and asks, “Would not the _inaction_ of the local Legislature, its refusal to provide a _Slave Code_, or to punish offences against that species of property, exclude Slavery just as effectually as a Constitutional prohibition?” And here is an end of the matter.

Changing forms as often as Proteus, we yet find him admitting, first, that Slavery goes into the Territories under the Constitution; secondly, that the right of property in a slave cannot be destroyed by the Territorial Legislature; and all that this Legislature can do, by way of opposition, is to fold its hands and to seal its tongue in inaction. What, then, is this wonderful doctrine? So far as it means anything, it is simply this: that the people of a Territory have a right to _introduce_ Slavery, but not to _prohibit_ it. And such is Popular Sovereignty! Verily, between this and the Breckinridge dogma there is about the same difference as between the much-vexed doctrines of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, where there was only the difference of a single syllable, and both involved the same thing.

Nor is even this all. The Convention at Baltimore which nominated Mr. Douglas has declared by formal resolution, that “the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and _enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government_.” And Mr. Douglas, in accepting his nomination, has expressly recognized this doctrine, thus in advance delivering over his bantling Popular Sovereignty to the tender mercies of the Supreme Court.

Far different is the position of Mr. Lincoln, who has openly said, in his debate with Mr. Douglas, “If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether Slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. That is what I would do.”[171] And allow me to add, that this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln is the doctrine of the Republican party. Any doctrine short of this betrays the trick of Mr. Douglas.

The tree is known by its fruits, and if anything further were needed to expose this cheat of Popular Sovereignty, it might be found in its fruits as boasted by Mr. Douglas. A slave code most revolting in character had been adopted by the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico, not only establishing Slavery there, including the serfdom of whites, but prohibiting Emancipation. Through the generous activity of the Republicans, and in the exercise of a just Congressional intervention, a bill passed the House of Representatives annulling this slave code. While the bill was on the table of the Senate, attesting at once the disposition of the House of Representatives to interfere against Slavery, and also the signal necessity of such interference, Mr. Douglas took occasion to make his boasts. Surrounded by the chiefs of Proslavery Democracy, the juggler of Popular Sovereignty thus showed what the trick had done for Slavery. Here are his words:--

“It is part of the history of the country, that, under this doctrine of Non-Intervention, this doctrine that you delight to call Squatter Sovereignty, the people of New Mexico have introduced and protected Slavery in the whole of that Territory. _Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract of Free Territory into Slave Territory more than five times the size of the State of New York._ Under this doctrine, _Slavery has been extended from the Rio Grande to the Gulf of California_, and from the line of the Republic of Mexico, not only up to 36° 30´, but up to 38°, _giving you a degree and a half more Slave Territory than you ever claimed_.”[172]

As the tree is known by its fruits, so also is the man known by the company he keeps. At first associated with Mr. Douglas on the same ticket, as candidate for the Vice-Presidency, was Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, belonging to the school of Slave Propagandists, and fresh from voting in the Senate against Popular Sovereignty; and when he declined, his place was supplied by Mr. Johnson, of Georgia, also belonging to the school of Slave Propagandists, who from the beginning has denounced Popular Sovereignty, and insisted that “it is the right of the South to demand, and the duty of Congress to extend, protection to Slavery in the Territories during the Territorial state,” and who, at Philadelphia, in a public speech, did not hesitate to insult the mechanics and working-men of the country by the insolent declaration that “Capital should own Labor.” Such is the associate of Mr. Douglas, with whom he is so united as candidate that you cannot vote for one without voting for the other. One of his earnest supporters in the Convention at Baltimore, Mr. Gaulden, of Georgia, pressed the opening of the slave-trade with Africa on the very grounds of Popular Sovereignty and Non-Intervention. After declaring, that, “if it be right to go to Virginia and buy a negro and pay two thousand dollars for him, it is equally right to go to Africa, where we can get them for fifty dollars,” he said, that, “if the Southern men had the spunk and spirit to come right up and face the North, he believed the Northern Democracy, at least, would come to the true doctrine of Popular Sovereignty and Non-Intervention.” This barbarous utterance was received by the Douglas Convention with “applause and laughter.” Such are the men with whom this candidate is associated.