Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-05-29
Whig Meeting.
cHANEEOF TIME,
Democracy and the Rights Of the
south.

10 regard tue Slavery question hs WeIe Ph''y
elemen, to be managed for selfish ends'they have
discovered the necessity of doing something to
appease the awakened suspicion Of the South, and
are prepared to make bold bid for Southern sup
port At such time ii is Of the highest Importance
tina, the South should understand the real issue az
no, permit itself to be cheated by any simulated
regard for its rights, or any concession or guar
antv from the North which does not comprehend
the vital point in the controversy between the
sections That vital point is this; The right
offhe citizens Of the South 10 go nth their siapes
into any Territory fine Union. and there pos
s,ss and use them UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.
until The Territory shall hare become INFESTED
Nth the sovereign porers Of State. This right
is absolute and undeniebe it is vital and pres
sing il is the real living issue between the friends
and the enemies of slayery-but momenious and
urgent as il IT, we shall undertake to prove that
it has never been Acknowledged by the Democrat
io party, as party; that it has been denied and
repudsted by the Northern branch Of the party
and that there is no reason TO hope that the Gin
oinnati Convention will concede it. In discussing
cradle extent. OF views and authorities presented
in a late number of the Nashville Banner.
In the first place. we assert that. with all their
pretented regard for the rights Of the South the
Democratic party have never in any National
Convention affirmed or admitted this primary. in
dispuabe aud inlienable night of the slavehol
ding States. We challenge contradiction Of this.
l.. AHA a aartf hntu No ia 4.
ic State Convention in any Northern State. has
recognized such right. We defy dsProof of this
assertion.
In the third place, assert that recognized
leader Of the Northern Democracy Except per-
haps Mr.. Jones,of Pennsy lvania) has ever conce-
ded this right to the South II there be Il solita.
~ individual, tbesides the one named, whose nd
mission Of the right was only qudsl let him be
named and we pledge ourselves to do him and the
party justice.
In the fourth place,we assert that the reverse
Of the proposition, as we have laid it down, has
b cen so commonly affirmed by tho democratic
co nventions Legislatures organs and orators of
I he party in tho North, as to leave no rational
oubt that the denial Of this fundamental right
o fine South is an essential tenet in the creed of
Northern Democracy.
1t is direct and explicit denial of this right to
say that Congress has the power to prohibit the
introduction Of slaves into territory, as so many
OF the leading Democrats of the North did say,
when the Wilmot Proviso was under discussion.
1t is a clear and unequivooal denial of the right
to say that the inhabitants of Territory through
their Territorial Legislature, may nterdict slave
ry, as every Democrat of prominence North of
Mason's and Dxon's line whose views are known
Except again Mr.. Jones of Pennsylvania) now
maintains.
1t is an unqualified and absolute denial Of the
right 10 say that slavery is local and only OK.
ist by virtue of laws establishing it, us the very
soundest and most liberal of the Northern Dem
ocrats have said. and yet continue to say.
None of these propositions or assertions can be
.oontroverted. Their admission would be tho es-
Establishment of what we set out to prove; but We
ha We evidence and facts to substantiate our posi-.
tions which make the argument Independent OF
al from admissions or deductions.
Going back to the period when the slavery
question, after the Missouri excitement, first pre-
scented formidable national issue, in lSiS, we have
the action of the Michigan Legislature which pre-
scented Gen. cass as candidate for the Presiden
cy. That Legislature adopted the following res
olution:
"Resolred That hostility to the extension fhumar
slavery is now and has been the principle of tn,
Democratic creed and that TO abandon il at the pres
ent crisis would be crime against the free principles
upon which our institutions are based"
About this period Gen. Cass, who had been an
advocate of the Wilmot Proviso, shifted his
ground and substituted for it the doctrine which
has since come to be known as Squatter Sover.
eighty. The gst of this doctrine was the argu
ment that the right to prohibit slavery in the
Territories existed in the Legislatures thereof
instead of Congress-. Either doctrine, as we have
asserted above, is utterly at war with that RIGHT
OF THE SOUTH which we have characterized as
the great,vital and leading issue of the day. In
supporting Gen. Cass. none will deny that the
Democratic party, South as well as North, ig-
nored that issue, or surrendered it to the North
The next national movement had reference to
the last Presidential election. The Democracy
of New Hampshire presented Franklin Pierce AS
a candidate. The Legislature of the State. in
which there was an overwhelming majority of
Democrats, short time previous, had adopted
the following resolution:
Resolved That abe people Of this State are bound
by compact, express or implied, 10 suffer the in
troduetsn of slavery into territory free and thai
they unalteraby opposed to the erection Of any
territory, without its prohibition by positive law"
It is not known that Gen. Pierce, who became
the democratic candidate for the Presidency, ha'
al any time been an advocate Of the Wilmo
Proviso, but it is certain that he had never as
serted that right cfthe Sosfh to which we hav
alluded. and that he has since bis election put
construction on the Kansas bill that effectuall.
apd completely denies that right. In bis inter
view With Senator Clemens, an in his last an