The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-21
The Richmond Enquirer on the Doug
las Magazine Essay.

The veteran organ of the Virginia Democ-
racy is publishing a series of powerful edito-
rial reviews of the late Magazine essay of
Douglas They are the most searching and
conclusive papers in exposition of the fallacies
ofthe squatter sovereignty dogma that has been
submitted to the public for many day; and
ought, therefore, to have wide circulation
We have read them with much qualification,
accepting them as the authorized uttterance of
Democratic sentiment in the Old Dominion
The Enquirer stands upon the position taken
by Senators Hunter and Mason in the debate
Of February 23d, and leaves us no room to
fear that Virginia will not stand side by Side
with Mississippi and other reliable Southern
States in the Charleston Convention.
We have not room for the Enquirer's arti-
cles, but cannot resist the inclination to pub
lish the following paragraphs:
We find Mr. Douglas yenturing upon
another field Of discussion, on the merits of
which we are obliged to separate from him,
indeed, to stand in uncompromising differ
ence, on point also involving the question
of the State Equality and the entire slavery
question, in the phase which it finally assum-
ed. As explained with sufficient explicitness
in his last publication, the position asserted by
Mr.. Douglas now is, that the residents of q
Territory may rightfully ard legally, through
the action of Territorial Legislature exclude
the introduction of slave property into Ter
ritory, or abrogate the right to hold slaves al
u.
gress, the Executive, nor the Judiciary of the
United States can rightfully intervene to pro-
tect slave property from such hostile action of
mere Territorial authorities.
We have already repeatedly urged upon
the attention of our readers this doctrine as
even more practically and effectively subYer-
siye of the Constitutional rights of slayehold-
ers than is the doctrine maintained by Mr..
Seward and his adherents of the Black Re-
publican party Mr.. Seward holds that Con-
gress may rightfully exclude slave property
from the Territories. Me- Donglas contends
that this power resides in the local authorities
of each Territory.
So far, then, as the great question OF prin-
ciple involved is concerned, there is no materi-
al difference between Mr.. Douglas and Mr..
Seward. Both deny the inalienable right Of
the citizens of each State to enjoy, on Terrific
nv common to all States, every species Of
property which any citizen may lawfully
hold within the limits Of any one of the States.
Mr.. Seward attributes the power to abrogate
this right to great federal legislative body,
where the attempt would be met with the
strenuous opposition Of full body Of South
ern representatives, whose action and deliber-
alton are constant subjects of watchful atten-
ton and Jealous comment to the whole peo-
pie Of the Union. Mr.. Douglas attributes the
same power to isolated and obscure local au-
thorities, among whom the shareholders Of
the Union may be altogether excluded, even
| from partial representation, whose members
| and constituencies are comparatively respon-
siple.
Certainly, Mr.. Douglass doctrine is equal
| ly obnoxious in theory with that Of Mr.. Sc
ward, and much more easily reduced to prac-
teal adoption. i
Again:
| Mr. Douglass essay can be regarded in nc
other light than as an incendiary document
calculated to produce nothing less than arepe.
| ton Of the anarchy and bloodshed which has
lately disgraced the soil of our territoues.-
We publish it only for the purpose Of point.
| ing out its errors, and CT warning the conser.
vative men Of the country against this las
and most dangerous phase which the anti
slavery agitation has yet assumed. @