The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-09-06
Mr.. Douglas and his Late Manifesto
among the Southern Democracy.

among the Southern Democracy.
The Southern democratic press, with scarce
/ ly an exception, repudiatc the late popular
sovereignty" manifesto of Mr.. Douglas, and
/ contend that It's author cannot pass through the
fiery ordeal of the Charleston Convention. This
information win hardly surprise our readers;
but still IL Is somewhat remarkable, in view of
the fact that, since the late North Carolina, Ten
nessee and Texas elections, the Southern fire.
eaters are rapidly abandoning their extreme
demands OF slave code for the Territories and
the repeal of the law of Congress against the
African slave trade.
For example, a leading Southern rights or
gan-ibe Columbia Is. CO. Caroliniah-
that in dropping this impracticable demand for
a slavery code for the Territories it will be an
easy matter for 1.-THE entire democratic party of
the South to combine against Douglas and
march forward TO victory in 1860 4His article
in Ha,per's Magazine arrays him against the
entire South, and dissipates whatever chance
he may have had for the Charleston nomina-
ton" And there Is very powerful reason
given for this opinion, TO wit; that the men
who will meet in that Convention will know
full well that the main reliance of the party is
in the South" and that they would no more
think Of nominating man for whom the South
would refuse to vote than they would think Of
trying to sustain vitality without food And
thus it is contended that, although the North
will have the majority in the Convention, the
South viii control it, because the South embo-
dies the life and strength of the party.
But in order to dispose Of Mr.. Douglas, under
the pressure Of the moral weight of the South
in the Convention, it is pleaded not only that
she should, but that she must, reinquish this ex-
IRENE Southern idea Of Congressional slavery
| code for the Territories And here II Is that
our South Carolina contemporary hits the nail
| upon the head. Let this scarecrow Of Terri
torial Congressional Intervention for the pro-
lection Of slavery be abandoned, and let the
Southern democracy take the safe middle
ground occupied by Mr. Buchanan's admins
tration, and Douglas will have nothing to Ggh,
but the windmill Of his own building Let the
rights Of slave property in the Territories be
left to the Judgment Of the Supreme Court, and
upon the first case requiring definite decision
the whole question will be settled. Granted
that the bred Scott decision does not reach the
question 1t involves individual opinions OF
the Judges which leave no room for apprehen-
sion touching the rights Of the STAKEHOLDER, In
the event Of collision between him and the
local authorities Of any Territory, under an APP
peal to the Court.
On the other hand, while the popular soye-
reignty" doctrine Of Mr.. Douglas promises q
new chapter Of Kansas outrages and rufiansms
in every new Territory worth contending for
the Congressional Intervention doctrine Of
Governor Wise opens the door 10 the Wilmot
proyiso; for II Congress has supreme auihori-
| ty over the subject, regardless Of the Terrific
rial authorities, who can be made 20 believe
that the power Of Congress stops with the
power TO introduce and protect slavery
Down to the year 1850 this Territorial aushori-
ty Of Congress was exercised and recognized
to include the prohibition Of slavery. In 1854
in the Kansas Nebraska bill, this power was
denied and repudiated by Congress, and the
cloudy doctrine Of popular sovereignty was
substituted The results have proved this last
experiment more disastrous TO the South and
more prejudicial TO the peace Of the Union
Than any other rule Of Congressional legisla-
ton.
And what nextG Between the sectional dis