Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-03-05
The late Debate I'm the Senate--North-
crn Democratic view Off
Correspondence of the Cincinnati Enquir

| Correspondence of the Cincinnati Enquirer.)
For some hours the Senate was oblivious of
| the fact that it had any thing but negroes to
| legislate for. To the astonishment and dis
| gust of the Northern men, and of all we'll
wishers of the Democratic party. Senator
| Brown, of Mississippi, led off by coming out
| fiatfOOted for Congressional intery ention i'm
| behalf of slavery in the territories. He said
| the Constitution alone could not protect
slavery in the territories, and that legislation
is necessary. If the people of The territory
would not protect it by special law, Congress
must do 1t. He further said, that unless Con-
gTess should intervene. if requested, to pro-
tect slavery in the territories the South must
withdraw from the Union. This audacious
speech, which completely repudiatcd the
Democratic doctrine of non-int rventiOn. was
ably replied to Icy Senators Pugh, Douglas
and other Northern Democratic Senators.
They were directly appealed to by Senator
Brown to know whether the Northern Demo
crazy would protect slavery in the territories
by Congressional legislation. Douglas and
Pugh assured him in the most emphatic
manner, that the Northern Democracy would
not. The Northern Democracy would agree
that Congress should neither prohibit nor
protect slavery in the territories. Beyond
that they would never GO Mr.. Pugh was
especially energetic and manly in his defense
OF the Democratic doctrine. He declared
that Browns demand was monstrous, aud
involved breach of plighted faith. Ii there
was any thing that the Democracy, North
and South. have agreed upon it was that
Congress should do nothing in respect to
slavery in the territories.
Senators Hunter, Jefferson Davis, Green
and Mason. took part in the discussion, aud
all favored Congressional protection to sla-
very in the territories Mr.. Davis was ex-
ccedingly metaphysical, and made the most
refined distinction. 1t is generally conceded |
that he beat any Of the Virginians in abstrac- |
ton: for instance, he said "he could not agree |
to the position taken by the Senator from IL |
linois. who had based his argument upon the |
idea that there was a people in the Terrific |
ries. There were inhabitants there. but not |
people" What a wise aud profound dis |
covery hope he will take an early oppor- |
sunity TO elucdate the precise distinction be- |
tween "McCarty, come outf' or ''comc out, |
McCarty!' II reeollect Alright, the first /
Constitution of Ohio used the word inhahit- /
ant to distinguish the people, who for over |
forty years were not aware that they were on /
that account the less people. Davis's re- /
finemeut is absurd, and it is "A wonder how il /
found Judgment ia the brain of a man of 80 |
much ability.
Senator Mason talked about the Territories
as a British Prime Minister speaks of the de-
pendencies of the British Crown People
there. he said, bad no rights except what Con- /
gress gave them.
IL Is admitted generally here that IL the /
South insists on Congressional protection to
slavery in the Territories. il win divide the
Democratic party. have seen no man from /
free State who believes that any party al
the North would support the dactriae. All /
say IL would be utter ruin to the Democracy. |
while IL eoald confer no practical advantage /
TO the South. IL is impossible for Congress
10 iegislate slavery into Territory II the
people are opposed 10 il. II The South In
slsts on this demand as sies qa4a noa OF its re-
naming 10 the Union, IL alighl As well pre-
pare 10 20 cut at once.