Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1858-10-30


Voice Of Ne soutAsrn Pres.
We have already publishsd extracts from the
Mobile Register. the Nashville Union. and the
Jackson Mississippian. in severe condemnation of
tho open advocacy Of Squatter Sovereignty by
Senator Douglas These Journals are the organs
Of the predominant public sentiment in their res
pective STAKES. They indicate Enthusiastically the
DRIFT of public opinion in the South, and they sat
isfy us that there 10 manlincss enough in portion
of the Southern Democracy to denounce great
crime and outrage upon the South, even at the
expense Of alternating from the party one Of the
most effective Northern leaders Of National
Democracy.
There is another journal whose voice is never
silent when the South is in danger We mean the
Charleston Mercury. Does the Mercury apologize
for Douglas, Not at all. Does the Mercury de-
sire HE reelection TO the Senate? On the contra
nv, il betrays equally a. "serene indifference"
to the result a. the Washington Union. But We
will let 1t speak for ITSELF Here is its language,
in re-publishing from the Richmond South the
scathing review of Douglas Frecport Squatter
Sovereignty speech. which appeared in that paper
a short time ago:
We lay before our readers this morning n yalu-
able article from tho Richmond South, entitled
The Hercsies Of Douglas" The South can hold
out no longer. 1t began by throwing the whole
weight Of that paper in favor Of Douglas in the
election in Illinos, hut paticnc els exhausted, and
it speaks out the truth. Yet it does not seem Ia
to be quite clear Of the fog which attachments per
haps, Or perhaps comm:ttals, have thrown over
this .tdittless renegade 1t speaks Of Douglas rs
''the man to whom we are indebted for the repeal
Of the Missouri Compromise "Lndebted!' Why
he himself declared that by this repeal he roud
,crcst from, the South territory south of that Inc
His course last winter with respect to Kansas was
only part Of his policy in obtaining repeal of
the Missouri Compromise, which was 10 drirs the
South from all our territories and appropriate them
for tie North The bred Scott decision is directly
in the path Of his unconstitutional pocy-yet,
does he yield obedience to it! Not he. Ii is dis
regarded and he still insists squater sovereign
ty a. q "idwtui" means to accomplish his ends
And he IL 1.-THE man TO whom the South is indebted
for the repeal Of the Missouri Compromised The
Richmond South condemns but it does not rcpudl-
ate. 1t puts forth remembrance only. 1t says:
Under these circumstances We are constrained 10
qualify our aspiration for his success by
STRANGE against the heresy Of his doctrine" We'll,
this Is very gentle. We are glad, however, that
the South, unlike the Hon. Jefferson Davis. whom
it beprascd 80 profuscly Of late, will neither
sert like the high object Of its euogies at Bangor.
the Vdgu0hS doCITt@ o| SJhdNtT sUffftfyHy, nor
will withhold its just condemnation.
As We have alluded once or twice to the .SonA's
article, we reproduce the main portions of it.
We have italcised certain passages in it, in order
that the reader may observe how tho hcrcsy" Of
Douglas is accepted by n writer, NIL Of whose sym
pathies incline him to the support of the Illinois
Senator in the present contest:
But, while such is our position in respect of the
struggle in Illinois. we cannot forbear an express
sion OF dissatisfaction with doctrine which Judge
Douglas has promulgated in the progress of the
canvass. We alludc to the declaration that Ter
ritorial Legislature may lawfully prohibit the in
PRODUCTION Of slavery. 1t is true Judge Douglas
that such All exclusion IF Southern in
tcrests from the common territory. may he accom-
plished only by the indirect expedient of refusing
the legal enactments essential to the security Of
slavery. But the rrony is moi mitiyafed 6y Tie
mode Of its preparation. 1t tho people of tho
South have n right to IN equal enjoyment OF the
common territory, they have right to be protcc-
ted in the privilege. If the territorial authority
is incompetent to repel slavery by positive enact
mcnt, it is lust rs much incompetent To rcpel
slavery by an om ssion To give it the security OF
legal guarantees. Every citizen las n right to the
protection Of his property by government hence
results obligation the territorial legislature to
secure immigrants from the South in the quiet pos
them, it is no less wrong than if they were ey-
cludcd from the territory by positive prohibition.
Wherefore, deny, out and out, that territorial
legislature, which is instituted expressly Cor the
protection Of the rights of person aud property,
may constitutonally refuse the enactment, essen-
tial Ia the security Of slaverythc property uf the
South.
The same conclusion was established in the
bred Scott decision, but by somewhat different
process Of augmentation. In the first place. the
Supreme Court planted itself on the position that
Congress--the federal legslature-has no power
under the constitution to interdict slavery in tho
territory. This Is the non-nerNention doctrine TT
the democratic party. Bnt territorial govern
ment is the creature Of Congress, and possesses on
ly such authority is communicated bv its prin-
cipal. Wherefore, the territory Of legislature is
incompetent 10 erolade s'areyy. either BY lost're
actaaent o. by an indirect arfiGce. If deny the
dogma that the federal government may prohibit
slavery in the common domain, the conclusion
against the power of the territorial legislature TO
accomplish the same result, is absolutely irresisti-
Bile. No Southern Democrat will pretend for
moment that Congress can rghtiuliy prohibit
slavery in the territories.
When, therefore, Judge Douglas was reported
might lawfully exclude slavery from the terrific
ries. by denying it the protection to which all
property is entitled at the hands OF government,
zoe vepudidted the doctrine absurd and mis-
chierous he,esy But his friends ventuied an apo
logetical Interpretation of his language; aud be-
fore protesting against the principle which we
derstood him 70 promnlgatc, awaited his own
construction Of his speech. We have it at last,
and We are obliged to say that it is rery far from
satisfactory 10 the South.
The apologists of Judge Douglas represented that
in asserting the power Of territorial Legislature
tn exclnde slavery by denying it legal protection,
he intended 10 impose the obligation upon Con-
gress. In other words, they understood him to