The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-07-06

Northern DeInQeraeE
: I'D - II tiley ptisillanimously n
I fuse to take this pcsition--if they pause shol
+ of the point which their honor as well as the
: material interests demand that they shoul
reach-they cannot reasonably expect tn
Northern Democracy to fight their battle
unaided Nay, Northern men who wish t
: do the South justice and secure to her tn
full measure of her rights, are thwarted il
their patriotic and selfsaerificing efforts, to tn
extent that Southern men faIter in the per
formanee of their duty.
Our course, then, is plain Let us nail oul
colors to the mast, and go into the approach
ing contest with onr principles so plainly in
scribed upon the folds Of our banner that they
cannot be misunderstood, SO that when the
fight is over there can be misapprehension o.
the points decided, whether victory sits upon
our own helm, or the day is won by the ia.
natical hosts who are rallying to the standard
of William H. Seward
The subjoined resolutions which were ad-
1
opted by recent mass Convention of the
Democracy of Maine, distinctly repudiate the
infamous dogmas of the Douglas factionists
and Black Republicans, and assert the true
doctrine of the Constitution
"Resolpecl That We find satisfactory solu-
ton of the question of slavery in the Terrific
ries in the Cincinnati platform, which declares
that We recognise the right of the people OF all
the Territories including Kansas and Nelraska
acting through the fairly expressed will of the
majority Of actual residents, and whenever the
number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form
Constitution with or without domestic sla-
very, and TO be admitted into the Union upon
terms of perfect equality with the other
States ?,
"Resolred, That any doctrine that would
eoncede to the citizens of one State the right
to take their property into the Territories and
hold it there, aud suoutd aorest that right faon,
the citizens Of another State, IS subUe,sire of
the cempaet Of the Constitution and the great
Fundamental principle Of the Uaioa-the equal
ity Of the States; that all advocates of such
sectional doctrines are unit to be members of
tie Dsaaoe4utic party, it being, as we believe,
the mission Of our party to uphold in its purity
that compact and to maintain tie pe1Jsct
eq,eaiity Of the States"
In Connection with the foregoing we beg to
call the attention Of our readers to the follow
ing clear and forcible reasoning, from the Bel
fast Journal, an influential paper devoted to
the advocacy of Democratic doctrines in the
same State whose united Democracy have
sslass.l the seal Of tflen ssIlsiss..
foregoing resolutions
We desire to inquire what is fair and right |
among the members of free, equal, confedera-
ted states, and to know what will be the con-
sequence of persistent effort to deny to any
of the eonfederacy equal participation |
in the common property.
At the time of the adoption of the constitu- |
ton every state in the Union save one was a |
slayeholding state. Slaves were universally |
regarded as property, as articles of merehan-.
die. The right of property in slaves is reeog-
nized in the constitution, and without this re-
cognition the constitution could never have
been formed. Is it to be presumed that states
would have united under a constitution which
should not recognize property in an article
which constituted so large portion of the
wealth of the state as slave property did in
Virginia, South Carolina and Maryland in
1888 The idea is preposterous; besides the
express provisions Of the constitution set this
matter at rest. Now because some of these
states have been fit to refuse to recognize pro-
perty in slaves within their own jurisdiction,
does their action in the least impair the obli-
cations of the original compact Should Nir-
ginia abolish the right of property in neat
stock, would that impair the right of the Yer
mont farmers to locate upon the territories
which are the common property of the states,
with his cattle and to hold them there as he
would in Vermont Would it be right for
Virginians who should emigrate thither to
abolish property in the article of neat stock
while the territory remained the common pro-
perty Of the states If they should do so,
would any man say it was fair, or right. or
And is not this parallel
case with the slavery question in the terrific
ries Il matters not that an OK is not a
slave; under the constitution both are equally
and when they are upon the public
domain are they not placed upon the same
constitutional footing
When, however, this common property
ceases to be the common property of the states,
comes an equal with them in the cOnfederaey
Of states, those who have jurisdiction over it,
have a right to settle the question for them /
selves as their sister states have settled it for
themselves. Is it not fair and right So
fair, so right and so honest that it would be
apparent to any one, though the constitution
was silent ON the subject.
Now the advocates of squatter sovereignty
assert the constitutional rightsof the Vermont
farmer to abolish the Virginians right Of pro-
L II. .l14I.s ~..-Ix4 4.f L