The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-08-11
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND
PLATFORMS.

able to keep our readers informed upon this
subject of platforms, but for the incessant ad-
ditions or notifications which they are under
going. We have heard a great deal of " final
ities," but we never arrive at them. Eleven
years ago, the party adopted popular sovereign
ty, in all its length and breadth, as It's political
creed, and nominated General Cass, who first
proclaimed it, as their candidate for the Presi-
dency. He defined popular sovereignty to be
the untrammelled right of the people of a Ter
ritory to establish or prohibit Slavery by their
legislative assemblies, as well as in the forma-
ton of their State Constitution, preparatory to
admission into the Union. Congress, he de-
clared, had no right to interfere with Slavery in
the Territories, either for its establishment or
prohibition. The great Democratic party ac-
cepted this doctrine, and attested their faith IN
it by voting for General Cass. There was no
third party at the South in the field, and he
with his popular sovereignty received the en-
dOrsement of the entire party in the. South.
Mr.. Calhoun, it is true, dissented from this
view, and maintained that the shareholders
have an indefeasible right to carry their slaves
into the Territories but, in the great fight be-
tween the Wings and Democrats which ensued
in l848, the dissenting voice of Mr.. Calhoun
was not heard. or not needed; and the Southern
Democracy, which now denounces this doctrine
of Territorial sovereignty as being worse than
the WillnOt Proviso, then DANGEROUSLY defended
it as the true theory of the Constitution.
The same doctrine was maintained by Mr..
Douglas during the discussion which took place
upon his proposition to repeal the Missouri
Compromise in 1854. He then held the doc
trine of Territorial sovereignty in all its amph-
tude No bred Scott decision then existed,
and Mr.. Douglas made his rule absolute. The
Southern members sanctioned it fully. They
applauded Mr.. Douglass appeals in behalf of
the unrestricted right of Territorial legislation
upon all subjects, and they reiterated them.
1t was then thought that Territorial sovereign
ty would accomplish all that the South had in
view, viz: the extension of Slavery. They
took it for granted that the restriction upon the
introduction of Slavery into the Territories west
of Missouri being removed, the establishment
of Slavery would be matter of course. But
their hopes were disappointed. Freedom proved
stronger than Slavery, with Border-Ruffani
and the Federal Government to back it.
Here then was a necessity for a change of
policy. The Cass- Douglas policy, of non-inter-
vention by Congress with Slavery in the Terri
tories worked badly in practice. The South
saw that there was little hope of Slavery extern
sion, except on the theory of Mr.. Calhoun, sane
toned by the Supreme Court, and sustained by
all the power of the Federal Government. The
demand was Immediately made upon the party,
and as matter of course, acceded to. The
bred Scott decision was got up in time for the
Inauguration of President Buchanan, and that
high fInctionary proclaimed in his inaugural
at the Capitol its leading feature, in advance Of
It's delivery By the court. That decision lays it
down that the Constitution carries Slavery into
all the Territories of the Union, and that no
power exists in the people thereof or in Con-
gress to exclude it. Congress and the Federal
Executive, on the contrary, are bound to pro-
tect the rights Of Shareholders until State
Constitution is formed. Such was the decision
of the Supreme Court in that famous case and
augural, what he has since repeated in his Sill
liman letter, and in his first message to Con-
gress, that no good citizen would presume to
question it.
This decision Immediately became the basis
of the platforms of the Federalized Democracy.
All sections or wings of the party recognise
bred Scott as pillar of Democracy. Even Mr..
Douglas acknowledges the sovereignty of bred.
but, while doing so, he undertakes to evade the
consequences of the fatal admission, by insist
ing that the people of the Territories may, new
ertheless, by non-egislation, and unfriendly
legislation" exclude Slavery.
This dodge of Mr.. Douglas will not answer
his purpose. 1t is illogical: and if the bred
Scott decision of the Supreme Court be binding
upon the consciences of Legislators and the
people, Governor Wise, Davis, Mason, Brown,
and in a word, the whole South, are right in
insisting that Slavery is entitled to Congress
sional protection whenever the people Of the
Territories attempt interference with the
"rghts" of shareholders. The old Federal
party contended, and the modern Federalized
Slave Democracy contend, that this Difference
is due to the Supreme Court. Thev insist that
when the Court decides upon the constitutional
ity of measure, the people aud their represent
atives are bound to acquiesce thus making
an ineffective and irresponsible body Of men
supreme not merely in the trial of calses in
volvng the rights of property between individ-
uals, but supreme the arbter of political ques-
tinns w hold with Mr. JaTarsop Tho, H. 49,.
is hot supreme inthis sense. We hold, with him
and with the Republican, Of the old school,
that the Supreme Court has no right to inter
NEEDLE with politics, or to decide political con-
trOYersles for the coordinate departments of the
Government. We therefore entertain no more
respect for a political speech of Judge fancy
than for one made by Mr.. Buchanan. When
the ermine of justice is dragged into the slough
OF demagoguelsm, 1t ceases to command respect
No mans opinions upon political topics are
changed by being told that the Supreme Court
has decided thus and thus. When the Supreme
Court decisions were the reverse of the bred
Scott decision-when they sustained the right
of Congress to exclude Slavery from the Terri
tories-the authority of the court at the Sontb
was treated with contempt; and the Southern
| popularity of that branch of the Government
dates back only few years. But we are d.
crossing.
Mr.. Douglas, as we have said, admits the
binding authority of the Supreme Court. but
most illogically and unfairly attempts to shirk
the responsibility it imposes, of protecting Sla-
very in the Territories He sbonId do ono &c