position of senator, or even that of a private citizen, where I would be at liberty to defend and maintain the well-defined principles of the Deniocratic party, to accepting a Presidential nomination upon a platform incompatible with the principle of self-government in the Territories, or the reserved rights of the States, or the perpetuity of the Union under the Constitution. In harmony with these views, I said in those very speeches in Ohio, to which Judge Black refers in his appendix, that I was in favor of conducting the great struggle of 1860 upon "the Cincinnati platform without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter." Yet, in the face of all these facts, the attorney-general does not hesitate to represent me as attempting to establish a new school of politics, to force new issues upon the party, and prescribe new tests of Democratic faith.

In conclusion, I have only to suggest to Judge Black and his confederates in this crusade, whether it would not be wiser for them, and more consistent with fidelity to the party which placed them in power, to exert their energies and direct all their efforts to the redemption of Pennsylvania from the thralldom of Black Republicanism, than to continue their alliance with the Black Republicans in Illinois, with the vain hope of dividing and defeating the Democratic party in the only western or northern State which has never failed to cast her electoral vote for the regular nominee of the Democratic party at any Presidential election.

WASHINGTON, October, 1859.

PROTECTION TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS-AFRICAN SLAVE

TRADE.

Mr. Peyton, of Virginia, formerly of Chicago, having addressed a letter to Mr. Douglas, in which he informed him that his views in respect to the rights of naturalized citizens and the reopening of the African slave trade were the subject of misrepresentation in the Old Dominion, Mr Douglas replied:

COLONEL JOHN L. PEYTON, Staunton, Va.:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2, 1859.

MY DEAR SIR: You do me no more than justice in your kind let ter, for which accept my thanks, in assuming that I do not concur with the administration in their views respecting the rights of naturalized citi zens, as defined in the "Le Clerc Letter," which, it is proper to observe, have since been materially modified.

Under our Constitution there can be no just distinction between the rights of native-born and naturalized citizens to claim the protection of our government, at home and abroad. Unless naturalization releases the person naturalized from all obligations which he owed to his native country, by virtue of his allegiance, it leaves him in the sad predicament of owing allegiance to two countries, without receiving protection from either, a dilemma in which no American citizen should ever be placed.

Neither have you misapprehended my opinions in respect to the African slave trade. That question seriously disturbed the harmony of the convention which framed the federal Constitution. Upon it the delegates divided into two parties, under circumstances which, for a time, rendered harmonious action impossible. The one demanded the instant and unconditional prohibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, while the other insisted that it was a legitimate commerce, involving no other consideration than a sound public policy, which each State ought to be permitted to determine for itself, so long as it was sanctioned by its own laws. Each party stood firmly and resolutely by its own position until both became convinced that this vexed question would break up the convention, destroy the federal Union, blot out the glories of the Revolution, and throw away all its blessings, unless some fair and just compromise could be formed on the common ground of such mutual concessions as were indispensable to the preservation of their liberties, Union, and independence.

Such a compromise was effected and incorporated into the Constitution, by which it was understood that the African slave trade might continue as a legitimate commerce in those States whose laws sanctioned it until the year 1808, from and after which time Congress might and would prohibit it forever, throughout the dominion and limits of the United States, and pass all laws which might become necessary to make such prohibition effectual. The harmony of the convention was restored, and the Union saved by this compromise, without which the Constitution could never have been made.

I stand firmly by this compromise, and by all the other compromises of the Constitution, and shall use my best efforts to carry each and all of them into faithful execution, and in the sense and with the understanding which they were originally adopted. I am irreconcilably opposed to the revival of the African slave trade, in any form and under any circumI am, with great respect, yours truly, S. A. DOUGLAS.

stances.

THE HARPER ARTICLE.

In the September (1859) number of "Harper's Magazine," Mr. Douglas published over his own name, an article entitled "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories: The Dividing Line between Federal and Local Authority." This article. was read with avidity by the public, and for some days after its appearance, nothing else was talked of in political circles. It is a clear elucidation of the line that divides the authority of the Federal Government from that of local authorities; and of the great principle that every distinct political community, loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. He exposes the erroneous views entertained by the "Republican" party on these points: shows that the courts in a Territory derive all their powers from the Territorial legislature: that all powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution, must be exercised by Congress in the manner prescribed in the Constitution; but that Congress may establish local governments, and invest them with powers which Congress itself cannot. constitutionally exercise.

He shows by the records of the provincial legislature of Virginia, that in 1772, the Virginians were unwilling to have slavery forced upon them: that in 1776, the inhuman use of the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia permission to exclude slavery from her limits by law, was one of the reasons for separating from Great Britain: and that in all the thirteen colonies, slavery was regarded as a domestic question, to be considered and determined by each colony to suit itself, without the intervention of the British parliament. He proves that the principle of popular sovereignty was at

the very foundation of the causes that led to the Revolution : showing that the patriots of 1776 fought for the inalienable right of local self-government, with the clear understanding that when the despotism of the British parliament was thrown off, no Congressional despotism was to be substituted for it.

He proves by a citation of Jefferson's plan for the government of the first Territory ever owned by the United States, that by it, the right of Congress to bind the people of the Territories without their consent was emphatically ignored; and the people therein recognized as the source of all local power that in forming the Constitution of the United States in 1787, the Convention took the British constitution for their model, conferring upon the Federal Government the same powers which, as colonies, they had been willing to concede to the British government, and reserving to the States and to the people, the rights for which the Revolution had been fought. He shows that the clause in the Constitution which gives to Congress "power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations for the Territory "— refers exclusively to property, in contradistinction to persons and communities; but does not authorize Congress to interpose or interfere with the internal polity of the people who may reside upon lands which the United States once owned. He alludes to the erroneous views that have been put forth in regard to the Dred Scott case; and shows that the slavery question was not included in the class of prohibited powers to which the Constitution alluded. He describes the steps by which the Compromise measures of 1850 were formed, and the principles on which they were based; and shows that they are the same principles upon which the Nebraska Bill of 1854 was formed.

We give a few extracts from the article, which possesses a permanent historical value, in the Appendix to this work.

The appearance of the Harper article caused, as has been stated, the most profound sensation in political circles.

The exposition of the question produced consternation and dismay in the camp of the assailants of Judge Douglas. Their hope was to secure the confidence and favor of the South by conceding their right to plant slavery in the Territories in opposition to the wishes of the people, and in defiance of the Territorial authorities; and at the same time, satisfy the North by withholding all legislative protection and judicial remedies, without which the right becomes a naked, useless, worthless possession. The exposure of Mr. Douglas opened their eyes to the dangers of their perilous position, and made it obvious, even to their comprehension, that they could no longer successfully maintain the ground they then occupied. Afraid to advance and pursue their doctrines to their logical consequences, and ashamed to retreat and return to the impregnable position of popular sovereignty, which they had so recently abandoned, they began to look about for some new expedient to relieve themselves from the awkward dilemma into which they had been driven by one short article in "Harper's Magazine." Accordingly Judge Black was deputed to frame an answer to the masterly paper of Mr. Douglas.

The attorney-general's reply to the Harper article appeared in the "Washington Constitution," the central organ of the assailants of Judge Douglas, in October. A few days after, Mr. Douglas made a speech at Wooster, in which he replied to the pamphlet of the attorney-general. The latter functionary published an appendix to his former article, and on the 17th of November, Mr. Douglas published a rejoinder, from which we make the following extracts:

In my reply to Judge Black I produced and quoted the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the following