The Yazoo Democrat. [volume] (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1858-18??, 1859-01-15

Why does the Stdtesman say, "the doctrine said
to be announced by the Richmond Enquirer Y
Does it wish to leave the impression on the minds
of its readers that the Richmond Enquirer does
not urge ON the Northern Democracy the doctrine
of congressional slave code for the Ierritories?"
The Statesman kao,rs as wel as anybody that this Is
mol only the doctrine Of me Richmond Enquirer, but
he doctrine Of almost eosy Democratic paper n the
South and aotd fec in the Norh-LebdROa( o. Star.
There are not six Democratic papers in the
South that advocate the propriety of Congress
legislating to protect slavery in the Territories,
and not single one at the North has taken that
position. The The Democratic doctrine is Con-
gressional non-intervention- it can neither pro-
hibit nor protect slavery in the Territories. We
state this for the benefit of the Star, which is
evidently an ignoramus on the subject
Csaciaaats Enquirer.
A close examination of the question will deter
mine any mind that the Enquirer is as much of
"an ignoramus on this subject" as the Star is,
though of course the doctrine of the latter cannot
be defended. We neither know nor care whether
there are only "six Democratic papers in the
South that advocate a Territorial slave code, or
only that many which are advocating ''non- inter-
vention." But one thing is pain-that it is the
true Southern or Northern doctrine of all true
Constitutional Democrats, that Congress is bound
to intervene for the protection of slavery in the
Territories against the assaults of ragamuifin
abolition squatters upon the common property CT
the whole Union.
For instance, if the first settlers upon Federal
Territory should assume 10 themselves the power
to say what shall constitute property, and in &C
csrdance with this usurped prerogative, should
declare that slaves should've be introduced there
in, then would it be the clear duty of Congress to
sustain the Constitution by protecting what it
recognizes property against this unlawful attack.
Non intervention here would be wrong and against
the principles Of Democracy, because it would be
an omission to preserve the Constitution intact
The Enquirer is therefore mistaken. The doc
trne Of the Democratic party is, that Congress
should intervene for the protection of slavery in the
Territories when occasion makes it necessary.
Democracy is progressive, and plain reason in any
exigency is Democratic doctrine. The territory of
the United States is Federal property and belongs
as much to one section as another. 1t belong as
IN UGH to Mississippi as it does to Massachusetts.
Slavery is recognized by Mississippi, but denounc-
ed by Massa chusetts Now, if it should SO happen
that Massachusetts should disgorge more aboli-
tonists into the Territory than this State should
send slave owners or advocates of the Institution
it does not follow that the anti savery majority of
first settlers have the power to declare our negroes
free upon their introduction. If they did, or i'll
one single Southerner found himself aggrievefin
his slave property, he could properly appeal for,
and would be constitutionally entitled to receive
Federal protection.
Congress should intervene to protect slavery in
the Territories, because it is property under the
Constitution, and if the property or rights of
Yankee citizen must be protected even at the
expense of war with foreign nation, certainly the
and rights of Southern citizens should
be protected in the Territories against the ag-
gressions of the more numerous party who are
common citizens of the same republic Thorough, |
non-nterventon is a Douglas,
squatter sovereign doctrine, and is far fam re-
ceiving the sanction of all the Southern Democrat
ic newspapers, without even "six" exceptions.
The Enquirer dubs the Star an ''ignoramus,
but Immediately 'writes itself down an ass'-Hy
way of politeness we suppose.