Daily national Democrat., 1859-05-24
They hnve no Right to 1t.

| Congress, whatever, Oh tho e"'JNN' " S'N
rv in the Territories; and in support of this
nronosition we have drawn abundant proofs
from the records of the country, showing
that Southern Democrats have deliberately,
and in so many words, relinquished all claim
that the South might have to the interven-
ton of Congress on the question. Southern
statesmen at an early day became convinced
that no other policy was safe for the South
but the policy of Nonintervention by the
National Legislature. 1t had been long con-
tended that Congress had absolute power
over the question of Slavery in the Terrific
ries of the United States, and Congress had
exercised in several instances this supposed
power. There was great danger that Con-
gress would proceed to abolish Slavery in
the District of Columbia, and declare finally
every foot of unorganized territory free soil.
A very strong sentiment prevailed in favor of
few Northern Democrats who were anxious
to see it passed. 1t was the policy of the
South, therefore to turn the current of pub
lie opinion in the North into new channel.
Her statesmen knew well, that it would be
impossible to effect revulson Of sentiment
there, which would favor Slavery, because
the preiudices of the North were deeply
rooted against the institution. They, there
fore, struck upon the idea of Non-interyen-
ton with the subject by Congress in any
shape or manner The principle was fair and
lust upon its face. 1t required no sacrifice of
prejudice or of conscience on either side. 1t
was simply agreeing to let the people, in the
immediate locality to be affected by the ques-
ton, determine it for themselves, and either
This was the only policy which prevented or
could have prevented the application of the
Wilmot Proviso to the territory then newly
acquired from Mexico. In his great speech
on the Compromise Resolutions of 1850, Hen
ry Clay rested his powerful argument against
the Wilmot Proviso upon the justness and the
fairness of Non-intervention He did not
question the power of Congress to pass the
Proviso but he believed it would be unwise
and unjust to exercise it. He succeeded in
convincing the Senate and the country that
such was the true policy on the great and
dangerous question that then as now was ag-
itating the Union and this same policy was
the life and soul of the Compromise of 1850
Long before this, however, had Southern
statesmen insisted that the principle should
be engrafted into the legislation of the coun
| try. Mr.. Calhoun's famous Resolutions in
the Senate, in ls47, will, of course, be re-
membered, the following one of which en-
bodies the doctrine of Nonntervention:
RESOLVED, That it is a fundamental principle in
our political creed, that people, in forming
Constitution, have the unconditional right to form
and adopt the Government which they may think
best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity
and happiness; and conformity thereto, no 9TH
er condition is imposed by the Federal Consttu-
ton in order to be admitted except that its Con-
stitution shall be republican, and that the impo-
sltion of any other by Congress would not only
be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct
conflict with the principle on which political
system rests"
President Polk represented Southern senti-
ment when he said, in his message of the 5th
of December, 1s4s, in reference to the Terri
tories of Utah and New Mexico:
+" In organizing governments over these Terri
tories no duty imposed on Congress requires that
they should legslate upon the subject of Slavery.
| Whether Congress shall egisate or not, the peo-
pie of the acquired Territories, when assembled
in Convention, will possess the sole and exclusive
power to determine whether slavery shall or shall
not exist within their limits"
The Democratic State Convention of Geor
gia, in 1S4S, Resolved,
"That the people Of the South do not ask of
Congress to establish the institution in any of the
territory that may be acquired by the United
States. They simply require that the inhabitants
of each Territory shall be left free to determine
for themselves whether the institution of Slavery
shall or shall not form part of their social sys-
tem."
The same views were announced by the
Democracy in all of the Southern States, and
the ultimatum that was then demanded of
the North was to commit herself to the doc
trine of Non-intervention. After struggle
of years with the prejudices of the North,
the policy for which the South contended
was agreed to by the Northern Democracy,
and established finally and perfectly in the
passage of the Kansas-N ebraska Bill, in
1854.
Having thus gained all that they claimed
and that, too, at the sacrifice of the political
fortunes Of some of the ablest Democratic
statesmen of the North, it seems to us the
very height of arrogance on the part of
Southern statesmen, now, to demand that,
because the South has not made as much by
her bargain as she expected or as she wants
the North must agree forthwith to the virtu-
al abrogation of the Kansas-N ebraska Bill
that great fnality-and launch out upon
new sea of policy. 1t seems to us that it is
asking little too much at the hands of
Northern Democrats, to require them to sac
rifce themselves as public men by rcnoun-
cling what they have so long preached to
their constituents and supporters in the North
as Democratic doctrine, and offer themselves
to be literally barbacued upon the fiery altar
Of the grim Moloch of Southern Dictation.-
These Southern would-be dictators ought to
know that the Northern Democracy will new
er submit to the humiliation. They do
know it, but are, in our opinion, fully resolv-
ed to urge the question forward, in order to
bring about such ferment in the country as
will open the way for a speedy dissolution Of
the Union Did they not desire to precipi-
tate catastrophe of this kind they would
not be so arropant audacious and sbamelass