“I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!”
We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself.
There was danger to this country-danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of Judge Douglas
He supposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath.
Choose ye between Jefferson
as to what is the true view of this element among us.
There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the Territories
and States alike in all things, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case.
If there is no difference between them, why not make the Territories
States at once?
What is the reason that Kansas
was not fit to come into the Union
when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas
Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union
They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question — the largest and most important with which they could possibly deal-what could they do by coming into the Union
that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it?
Oh, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem
or specific duties on foreign goods, or live oak timber contracts ; they are not fit to decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their import, but they are fit, “from the jump,” to decide this little negro question.
But, gentlemen, the case is too plain ; I occupy too much time on this head, and I pass on.
Near the close of the copy-right essay, the Judge
, I think, comes very near kicking his own fat into the fire.
I did not think, when I commenced these remarks, that I would read from that article, but I now believe I will :
This exposition of the history of these measures, shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the founders of our system of Government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their provisional legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity.
When the Judge
saw that putting in the word “slavery” would contradict his own history, he put in what he knew would pass as synonymous with it : “internal polity:” Whenever we find that
in one of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner; and I can tell you the reason.
It would be too bald a contradiction to say slavery, but “internal polity” is a general phrase, which would pass in some quarters, and which he hopes will pass with the reading community for the same thing:
This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and peaceful community, and not in the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a Government, and capable of performing its various functions and duties, a fact to be ascertained and determined by
--who do you think?
says “By Congress!”
“ Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not affect the principle.”
Now I have only a few comments to make.
Popular Sovereignty, by his own words, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the public domain in violation of law. We have his words for that.
When it does pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at 10,000, and the maximum at 20,000.
Now I would like to know what is to be done with the 9,000?
Are they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land in violation of law?
And if so treated and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand?
If they were not driven out, but remained there as trespassers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they establish