Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1851-01-04


the Unoiil Daring al this tine the country Is
mere bi1ak, with nothing l1r or against IT. e.
I tahshment. Ii Is subject 10 the Constitution OF
| the United States alone. Il thai viii protect the
/ Southern mans property there. he i, content. L
{ i will not, he j. content Ash nvokss oinier'
ventlon of Congress save to set aside the previous
+ intervention of HeI,co. Nhea that Is done he
has an open field and fair chance unle. the con
slitution.
+ But sir. another argument is made. thst the
doctrine OF aon Intervention hr AIDE th,s repeal OF
the Mexican laws and ordinances. pretend 10
understand something Of this doctrine, | have
borne its banner through three hard fought pol,ti
cal wars have uuflded 1t IN every valley and
planted il on nearly every mountain top Of Ten
nessee. What was the doctrinrl Non.in,erven'
ton by any hooy and every hody-hetwern the
people and the right to settle the question Of sa'
very when forming their Strife constitution. Non.
intervention by Cong ress, On-inlerventtnn by
/ Mexico, on'iuterventon by any body aud every
body--thal was the Polk. the Cass. the Demo-
cratic doctrine, it you please. What an absurd.
y. o hold on with death>grasp to non-u>
tervenlon by Congress, aud at the same moment
to advocate intervention By Mexico cleaves your
rights 10 the earth, certainly as Intervention by
Congress. Why all this clamor against the " H.
mot Provlsol Why this bold aud daring declare.
lion that you would resist that at all hazards aud
Ia the last extremity, il, after ali, these old Mex.
lean ordinances were TO remain unrepealed the
only things which American va,Or could not sub.
due in Mexico!
Mr.. Clay Gen. Cass, Mr. Webster. and many
Others whose names may we'll stand IN proud
association with theirs, long since told YOU that
these ordinances were in force. 1t you did not
meat to open that country to the Sonlh, by re,
peang them, why did you not surrender at once
aud say that the Son,h never could and never
ought to get any portion OF il Sir, put the
question TO this convention, put Il TO the good
sense Of mankind. whether great constitutional
rights ought ever to bo sacrificed by holding 10 II
mere dbrtdgemem OF The doctrine Of non .inlerven
ton, too narrow and contracted for their ptotec>
ionl
Mr. President: in the progrcss Of this dispute
ablnt our territorial pp,sessipns we have lost too
much by not better undero ndlnI this doctrine
# non.utervcnion. At our last session we
maintained this d ctrine in lis fullest, broadest
sense. In ten resolutions we maintained it.
mtntaimd il as 10 the whole country. But sir,
after exhaust ing every argument and making
every appeal is oar Northern brethren 10 allow
us the h benefit 0t i, We turned to the conem'
platoon Of the painful fact, whose liter realization,
W. have since experienced -tothe fact that there
was tle or no probability that or rights would
be l1lly recognized Under the full belief that
they would NOT, we planted ourselves on the for.
l. 4
cal periods Of our history. Sir, we WEE unanl-
nous in favor of tho Miss uri cpm,ro misc line
not one discordaut voice was heard through the
spacious bali Of our deliberations. II the Con.
gress OF tie L. ). had responded lavurably to
that voice, all wpu now have been well with the
Republic California wond have BEEN in the
Unon, bur with h'r Southern boundary on 3B
deg. 30 min. Shs would then have been larger
than Virginia, New York, or Pennsylvania. The
remaining country would have been organized
into territorial governments, without saying
word about slavery -neither admitting il nor re-
Jrcting IL; hut with repeating clause of all laws
which might be in fore" there aboIishing slavery.
Thus the South and the North would have been
thrown on An equal footing, leaving it to the con
siIlutlon--no to Conyress--not 10 the laws Of
MeAico--t0 say whether slaves should be carried
there or not. All, IS this had been dpne, what
contenedness and peace would have then perya>
ded our once happy counlry Then, indeed, we
could have rrJolced and started airesh in the CA
reer Of national greatness and glory. But sir, it
was rejected, and The story Is now tod u.s. that it
was anI-rrpubllcan Anu.republican to abide
by the Missouri compromise! by the Oregon cons
promise! by the Texas compromise! Take back
the incredible charge. The last message Of Jas.
X. Polk to his counirymcn, just before be went
down to the tomb. impored them to settle this
question on the principles Of the Missouri CEN
promise. Take back the charge that be was no
republican. When Texas was admitted on the
compromise line Of SO deg. 80 min, Andrew
Jackson was still living, and his heart reloced
to see the noble work accomplished. Take back
the charge that Andrew Jackson was no repnb.
can. Take back the charge against the hun
dreds and thousands, and tens Of thousands. who |
voted for $3.50 in voting for her admission into
the Union. Take i back, or stlfle your shout for
Polk and Dallas, and tear down from your banner
the lone star Of Texas.
Iii sometimes declared TO be unconstitutional |
1t was not proposed as an ordinary act Of Con. /
gross Uul ds COMpTOWSe--d compromise oI (
disputed question Of constitution. Now why |
cannot disputed construction Of the Coasltu.
ton be compromised rs we'll as any other -
Every other question, il seems, can be compro-
missed. Even an omnibus full Of all sorts Of COM
promises will do. Yet the Missouri conpro.
mise and the Texas compromise will not do al all.
A nd why were they unconstitutional Because,
il is said, they allowed Of the Intervention Of
Congress north of that line. No, that was not
the compromise. The original demand OF the
North was, that Congress should intervene and
exclude slavery from the whole country north
and south Of 80 80. Now the compromisG vas,
that Congress should forbsar that Intervention or
exclusion of slavery, and leave part Of it for
the South--that part was south Of 80 so that
was the true nature Of all these compromises -
Now, was it unconstitutional for US to sape
part when we were otherwise to lose the whole
country Well, now, after all, let us look to
results. Congress rejected our Missouri com
promise, and passed its own bills in lieu Of it,
Which was best for the South Ours would