The Winchester appeal. [volume] (Winchester, Tenn.) 1856-1856, 1856-05-03
God that he lived in q free State

mere W0S no reason Why people IN me
territories shouM not govern themselves
make their orn local laus and define
the character Of their institutions. He
maintained that the Nebraska bill did
not open Kansas and Nebraska tc
slavery. iii did he would yield al
argument--but slavery could not &c
there unless the people themselves
wanted it. A clause introduced by his
colleague had cut off all claims TO cs.
tabIish slavery under the operation OF
the old law when the territory was &C.
quircd by the u. S. Slavery is not
recognized in the territories and is on
ly subject to local laws. Every man
there is free. No slave; no master
until the people vote it. Unlettcred
human feeling is opposed to slavery
This speech was republshcd by the
Richmond Enquirer Of the Goth Sep
TENDER. 1854, with some structures, in
answer to which, the Detroit Free
Press. Gen. Cass' home organ, said:
"What Gen. Cass did say was that
"sIavery was great social and politi-
cal evil" lie also said that che thank
cd God that he lived in u free State
And what northern man does not! we
ask. lie took the view attributed to
him by the Enquirer of the Nebraska
Kansas act, contcnding, as every rep
utable statesman, and every respecta-
bic .jurist does, that slavery can have
no existence except ny force of posi-
tive law, and that hence it cannot go
to Kansas and Nebraska until permit
ted by the legislatures Of these terrific
rics. This is not the first, or second; or
third time that Gen. Cass has uttered
the same views on this point. lie hcl,.
them and had expressed them when
he was nominated for the Presidency
in 1913, and has upheld them scores if
not hundreds of times since. The
Richmond Enquirer ought to know
this"
Here we have Gen. CaSs, as charg-
ed by IL leading Democratic Journal,
and Us admitted by another journal of
the same sort, defending the Kansas
and Nebraska bill because it contain
ed the doctrine of Squatter Sovereign
ty-claiming for the people of the
territory the right--and insisting that
this bill secured that right--to ex-
cludc the south from the occupation
of this territory with their slaves.
And the Detroit Free Press insists
that this is the doctrine of all states
men. And this is the Democracy that
we arc asked to fall down and wor-
ship--to give up Fillmore and Donel-
son for.
This is the doctrine that John G.
Calhoun said was "thc most Enonstrous
doctrine ever advocated by an Amer
lean observation-disclosures than Wilmot
ProviSoism." 1t is the same doctrine
which the Nashville Union and Ameri-
can at one time said twas of all 9TH
crs the most odious to the South--in-
compatible with the constitutions" and
certainly it is the most humiliating
doctrine ever presented to a southern
man; and still the entire party north,
advocating this territorial Wilmot Pro-
viso, arc held up by Democratic jour-
nails south us something that is beau
tiful to look upon.
The Democratic State Conventions
of New York in lS47 and in 1913 most
emphatically declare, asa part OF their
political creed. ''thcir uncompromiSng
hostility to the extension Of slavery in
to any new territory"
And now, in the face OF all these
the Eacts--annunciation of the Demo-
cratic press; especially the Washing
ton Union and Detroit Free Press; the
declarations of all the leaders Of the |
party north. and the resolusions Ofthc
Democratic State Conventions north,
and the additional facts that Gen.
Pierce has appointed to office such men
as Dix, Fowler. Cochran. and the no.
torious w. J. Brown; and further:--
that the only two candidates ever run
by the Abolitionists for President were
both prominent Dcmocrats-we sub
nit whether the party has any very
special claims, so far as the rights of
the south are concerned. We close
this article by saying that, notwith-
standing all those facts, we honestly |
believe there are those in the coun-
try, and perhaps in this vicinity who