The substitute which Douglas offered for the Colorado bill, and subsequently for the other territorial bills, deserves more than a passing allusion.  Not only was it his last contribution to territorial legislation, but it suggested a far-reaching change in our colonial policy.  It was the logical conclusion of popular sovereignty practically applied.[934] Congress was invited to abdicate all but the most meagre power in organizing new Territories.  The task of framing an organic act for the government of a Territory was to be left to a convention chosen by adult male citizens who were in actual residence; but this organic law must be republican in form, and in every way subordinate to the Constitution and to all laws and treaties affecting the Indians and the public lands.  A Territory so organized was to be admitted into the Union whenever its population should be equal to the unit required for representation in the lower house of Congress.  The initiative in taking a preliminary census and calling a territorial convention, was to be taken by the judge of the Federal court in the Territory.  The tutelage of the Federal government was thus to be reduced to lowest terms.

Congress was to confine itself to general provisions applicable to all Territories, leaving the formation of new Territories to the caprice of the people in actual residence.  This was a generous concession to popular sovereignty; but even so, the paramount authority was still vested in Congress.  Congress, and not the people, was to designate the bounds of the Territory; Congress was to pass judgment upon the republicanism of the organic law, and a Federal judge was to set the machinery of popular sovereignty in motion.  Obviously the time had passed when Congress would make so radical a departure from precedent.  Least of all were the Republican members disposed to weaken the hold of the Federal government upon Territories where the question of slavery might again become acute.

While the House was unwilling to vote for a submission of the Crittenden propositions to a popular vote, it did propose an amendment denying to Congress the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of any State.  Not being in any sense a concession, but only an affirmation of a widely accepted principle, this amendment passed the House easily enough.  Yet in his role of compromiser, Douglas made much of this vote.  He called Senator Mason’s attention to two great facts—­“startling, tremendous facts—­that they [the Republicans] have abandoned their aggressive policy in the Territories and are willing to give guarantees in the States.”  These “ought to be accepted as an evidence of a salutary change in public opinion at the North."[935] Now if the Republican party would only offer a similar guarantee, by a constitutional amendment, that they would never revive their aggressive policy toward slavery in the Territories!