Des Arc citizen., 1859-03-25
THE DEMOCRACY NORTH AND
 SOUTH.

SoLFentiOl III IOoO, dhu thC "uoPs'oA VT its incomparable platform of principles,
 iit was the boast of Democrats every where," says the New Orleans Courier, ''lhat the tenets prolessed by them dld not vary with cline or lattude-that Demo- crats in Maine and Texas stood upon the same platform and pursued the same ends that the basis of the whole creed was the Constitution, to be interpreted accord ing to justice and equality" all cher
 shed the inherent sovereign rights of each State and all the States--in short, that our party knew no North and no South--tbat il knew no legal right too n- significant to foster and protect--that il knew no wrong too powerful 10 be reme- died. Compact, determined, and in per- feet concord, Democracy gave battle to all North or South who labored for section alism or intolerance under the motly ban ner of Krow.N Nottingham and Freesoil. 1 Nearly thirteen hundred thousand Northern voters planted themselves on the Democratic platform, supporting the independence of State governments, guarding the common rights of the peo- 1 pie of every State in the common terri tories. acquiescing in and opposing the Irepeal of the Missouri fesriction--o --oppo- sing Abolilionism in every form, and Federalism in all it's guises. Nothing then gave us more pleasure than 10 re- publish the speeches and writings of l Northern Democrats. setting forth the I wholesome constitutional and Catholic l doctrine of Democracy with such power and eloquence as would have commanded the applause of Southern audience. Our opponents alleged that Northern Democrats were not trustworthy, and 1t was grateful task, a pleasing duty to Iprove the allegation false.
 l When the law organizing the territories I of Kansas md Nebraska come to be in |terpreted by Congress in the bill for the |admission of the former as a State, some Northern Democratic members of Con lgress in both Houses, put different con- slruction on the principles of that bill, and drew deductions from it different from those of all Southern and many Northern I Democrats. The whole subject was thoroughly, vehemently discussed. The contest is too recent, however, to require recapituation and its result are matters of familiar history.
 There was no difference as othe sound- ness of the principle originally involved in the Kansas bill-lhat of Legislative non intervention in the affairs of a territory about becoming State. All Democrats then believed that Congress had no right to inhibil slavery in territory on the one hand, nor 10 make its inhibition of slave ry a condition precedent to its admission
 into the Union. Non-intervention by Congress was the motto of the party to which the creed of the Black Republicans was directly antagonistc They claimed that it was the right and duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the territories and to exclude all new States, unless their con stlutions prohibited slavery. All that , Democrats then asked was that slavery should go freely 10 the territories, as il does by right under the Constitution, and that when the territories should be erected into States-t then, and not till then-the people should be perfectly free to deal with it as they see fit.
 Sin ce the inauguration of Mir, Buchan. ans administration, however, there seems to us to have been violent alteration and departure from this just and constitutional
 principle, upon Ne part of many of our ' Northern brethren. And now 1t cannot be denied that large and increasing ma. iority of them claim for the people of a territory, while yet in chrysalls, inchoate : StutS, tilG 6AGluSiNS tO lSitt'S upOu
 the subject of slavery. It is needless tc , say that such construction of the princi- ples of the Kansas Nebraska bill would divest the doctrine of non intervention of
 whatever constitutional justice and equali- ty it is supposed to have. It would rem der the right of fifteen States of the con- } federacy 10 . participation in thc common benefits of the common domain, depen- dant upon the whim or caprice of the first
 few hundred squatters. The legal effect of such doctrine would be more efficient
 in depriving the South of her rights, than Congressional prohibition itself.
 Thus it cannot be disguised that the greatulass of the Northern and Soulhd Democrats stand antagonised to each oth- CT upon question vitally affecting the rights of the latter. Thus crcumstanced
 we believe that the Southern Democracy | frbn,,