Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-24
Is IT DEMOCRATIC DocTRINEi

equal protection to persons and property in
the territories was ever q recognised doctrine
Of the Democratic party. Our contemporary
labors hard to prove that its own party has
hitherto ignored u doctrine which it admits to
be perfectly just and constitutional.
We deny that the Democratic party is liable
to any such reproach.
The EXAMINER" refers to the fact that, Tin
1876 or A the Wilmot proviSo actually passed
the House of Representatives" Does the SEX
aminer' mean to say that there was any doubt
then, or now, as to the position of the Demo-
cratic party with regard to the Wilmot proviSo?
If the Examiners argument is worth any
thing at all, it implies the assertion that oppo-
Sition to the Wilmot proviso was not, at chat
time, an acknowledged feature of Democratic
principle. And, this implication, VIC utterly
deny.
The EXAMINER next refers to the Missouri
Compromise, and the act sor the organization
of Oregon territory. Let our contemporary look
Al. the facts. In lSl9-'20 there was no party
III lllc blllOll lllCi liz NV p'"'
gress to protect slave property and slave per-
SONS III the territories. There was, indeed, a
party which contcndcd that Congress had the
power to protect or TO prohibit. The other
party denied the power to prohibit, but still as
serted the power ami duty to protect.
The two parties finally agreed to do some
thing very similar to what the EXAMINER
now urges the Democratic Party 20 do-to ig-
more the Constitution, and compromise the
question. No statesman Of the day was silly
enough to believe that what was constitutional
on one side Of a merely geographical line was
unco~nstitutiona on another. They regarded
the case as one of hard necessity, where the
Constitution must be diSregarded. Southern
men argued in this way--this is a climatory
line, North Of which the introduction of slave
~ is impossible-by yielding this We can Sc
cure the full and undisputcd protection OF our
slaves in all places where their employment is
healthful and profitable.
The essential difference between the compro-
mise of 1920, and that which the Examiner"
proposes is this-that Of 1920 did not yield by
one jot or title the Constitutional power Of
Congress TO protect slavery in the territories,
but waived the duty Of Congress to
protect it North Of 81 deg, 30 m,n., and
was further calculated to secure entire pro-
lection for slavery South Of SO deg, 80 min.
While the examiners" compromise, on the
other hand, refuses to recognize avowedly the
poper or the duty Of Congress to protect slave
persons and property, North or South of 80
deg, 80 min.
The act for the organization of Oregon was q
mere repetition Of the Missouri Compromise,
and the same argument applies in this instance.
The EXAMINER next asserts that Mr.. Buc.
hanan was preferred over McsSrS. Douglas
Hunter and Pierce, at Cincinnati, because of
concurrence with Southern sentiment on
the part Of the three latter. Here our cotein-
porary is altogether mistaken. No members
Of the Cincinnati Convention were more eager
for Mr.. Buchanan's nomination than were a
large majority of the Virginia delegation, who
voted unanimously for Mr.. Seddon's resolu-
ton.
The following sentence from the Examiner"
is not so explicit as we would wish it:
"Seddon and Bocock and llarvie and others
pressed the true doctrine upon the Virginia
delegation, and it was most quietly. completely,
and with emphatic silence, ignored by the then
friends of availability"
Now be it remembered that two thirds of the
Virginia delegation were among these 'frlends
Of Availability and they unanimously adopted
Mr.. Seddon's resolution.
Moreover, the Examiner" informed us, some
days since. with apparent approval too, that
the matter was deferred by the Convention at
large to await the decision Of the Judiciary.
The fact OF the matter is, however. that the
conservative body Of the Democracy did not
press the subject in general Convention, be
cause they regarded Mr.. Seddon's resolution
as expressive Off doctrine already recognized
by the party. However this may be, the same
doctrine has since been recognized by the judi.
ciary, and the Charleston Convention will not
have the excuse which our contemporary alleges
for that at Cincinnati.
We return to the consideration Of preccdents
TO establish the fact that this doctrine OF equal
protection has been consistently recognised by
the Democratic party from its origin.
Our contemporary agrees with us that it was
recognised by the enactment Of the Constitu,
ton.
The act Of ccssion by which Virginia coded
the Northwest territories to the Union, sub
jected them expressly and entirely to be gov
erned By the United States in Congress Assem-