Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-08-30
Ai{bmoll0 Enquirer.
TUESDAY nonsING, AUGUST 80, 1889
INTERVENTION AGAINST NoN.NrERvENr1oN
By RlrcMIr. DuSXAvANr, TYLER 4 WISE.

INTERVENTION AGAINST NON INTERVENTION
The issue of Popular Sovereignty asains
Spnattcr Sovereignty will soon he made up
and fairly before the American people for trial
We are informed that Judge Douglass new
argument upon the subject Of territorial right:
will he out very shortly. He has been ex
amnins historical records for months back"
Thus will be presented The great issue, the
determination Of which will indssolublv ce-
mcnt or hopcles,ly divide the Democratic par.
ty. We are gratiled to learn that Judge
Douglas llaS determined to place his views au.
thoritatiycly and hy argument plainly before
tic country. Historical records We opine,
will give but little weight to the argument
The question is one Of constitutional right and
not of Historical records" and must be lie.
tcrmncd by the weight OF argument and the
soundncSs Of reason rather than the authority
Of history The Democracy Of Virginia and
the South must prepare for selection between
the Northern and Southern cxpOSitions OF Ter
ritorial rights. The South will be compelled
to choose popular sovereignty or squatter sove-
rcieniv: to elect between intervention and non
intervention.
Judge Douglas, very properly, has deter.
mined to present his views at length, and to
fairly inform "ull whom it may concern" what
they have to expect from him, if he should be
selected Us the Charleston nominee. This is
not only proper and fair but it shows a
determination Of purpose expected in a
statesman of Judge Douglas position. We
do not design to anticipate his views, but
the conclusion OF his ''ncw argument upon the
subject Of Territorial rights is too well known
to admit of doubt. This "new argument is
designed, We suppose, rs reply to "Ihe sam
ford Letter" and, as such, we welcome its sp-
pcarancc before the American public. To test
our rights upon the strength OF reason, becomes
men Of the same party, aS we'll rs sections Of
the same country But the final verdict upon
the issue, is Of far more momcntous impor-
,ance shan the f,,c which may bcial the authors
AMI their expo>i,;on-. Whatever may become
of Gov. Wise or Judge Douglas, in the seattle.
mcnt Of this issue, i> of but little consequence,
compared with its eject upon the fate Of the
Democratic party and IL" ic>,il,y "i the Ame-
can Union
The position and strength Of parties in the
country. at this time, has bearing not to be
overlooked in the consideration Of this qucs-
iinll. The loss to the Democracy of any South
crn Democratic State is the assurance Of hope
less defeat. The Importance Of this question
to the rights, the interests and the safety of
the Southern States, precludcs all thought that
the South viii not insist upon so important
principle.
The Democracy CT Mississippi has ioresha-
dowed the position of the entire South. The
following resolutions, adopted by their late
State Convention, are too clear to admit OF
doubtful construction:
''Rssoived That VT rc-annOunce, rs tile basis
of patty action, the platform of principles laid
down bv the Democratic party at tho National
Conycn,on OF 1856; and hold that the doctrine
or non intervention, with the institution of
slavery in States, Territories or District of
Col,nnba. dofS not, nor iras IL intended, to
conflict with the assertion OF the power Of Con-
grcss 10 protect the property of the citizens OF
the several States. who may choose to settle in
the Territories, which arc the common property
of all the States.
"Resolvcd, That in the language of the SUI
prcmc Court of the United States, 'the right
of property in slaves is distinctly and express
ly affirmed in the Constitution and the only
power over il confirmed upon Congress is the
power coupled with the duty Of guarding and
protcctin. the owner in THEN rights rs thus
declared.
Resolved, That Mississippi will stand by
her sister Slaveholding States in insisting upon
the enforcement, by all the Departments Of the
Federal Government, Of their constitutional
rights, as thus expounded by the Supreme
Court of the Cnitcu States"
Here i> the authoritative action OF one OF the
Southern States. Should there be no other
State pledged TO intervention, and Mississippi
alone shatfll withdraw from the Charleston
Convention, accompanied as she would be by
many delegates from other States, and appeal
to the Southern people to rally against candi-
date and platform hostile to Southern rights
and Southern interest, who will doubt that the
whole Southern Opposition and a majority oi
the Southern Democracy would rally to the
call of Southern State for Intervention against
noa-interventon: Ii is useless to say that such
action would result in inevitable defeat.
Again: There are very many intluentia! Inen
in the south, who believe that dissolution oi
the Union is more to he desired than avoided;
that the election Of Black Republican would
promote that desired event, and that such cleo
ton can ke secured by defeat Of the Charles
ton nominee. These men advocate the doctrine
of Intervention. Defeat that doctrine and
where will they ~: Certainly into opposition
to the nomination.
Aeain-Does not Virginia stand committed
to oppose the nominee Of the Charleston Con-
vention if maintaining the doctrine advanced
by Mr.. Douglas in the Senate las, winter!
What was the reply Of both her Senator's upon
that occasion: They denounced as "truants
and recreants" any individual voter who would
sustain the doctrine Of the Senator from Hi
noiS. Has any voice been raised in Eirsnia
to deu.ur to the declarations made by her Sc
nator, on 23d Of last February: Not one
Her Governor has most ably and clabo
ratcly replied to the Vermont resolutions
acains, the Drcd Scott decision, and demon
strated, by reason, argument and authority
the unconS,rutonaiity Of the doctrine Of non
Intervention. and though Gov. Wise occu
pies the identical position of Messrs. Mason
and Hunter, hs argument has been bitterly
assailed by the superviceable friends oil those
gentlemen, without one worl of dissent tf
the Vermont resolutions, at which the SANFORD