Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-07-17
Acceptance and Inexorable Logic Of John
@, Breckinridgo.

not limited by the caution which, since the
time of Clay, hes been the policy of the can
didates Of the Opposition, lestthey might say
some thing which could bemade practicable
breach for the assaults Of the other party.
Mr.. Breckinridge's position required no such
timidity. Nominated by the South, on the
Just and only representative principle thatthe
Democratic States should control Dem
ocratic nomination, and free from that anti
slavery pressure which forces Northern Dem
ocrats into duplicity and double-faced plat
forms, nothing less was expected from Mr..
Breckinridge than a clear declaration Of the
rights which the South claim in the Union,
with plain statement of the principles on
which they are formed.
This expectation Mr.. Breckenridge has un-
dertaken to fill. The principles which he
has laid down as the Southern, the Demo-
cratic, and the only national ground, we pro-
pose briefly TO examine. These are that the
Union is a Confederacy of equal sovereign
States for the purposes enumerated in the
Constitution. The Territorial Governments
are not sovereign. The Federal Government
holds the Territories in trust for all the States.
Whatever is held as property in any Of the
States, they have constitutional right to
take into the Territories, and it is the duty Of
the General Government to secure them in
the enjoyment Of this property in the Terri
tories, as every where else within its juris-
diction Nothing less than sovereignty can
destroy or impair the rights Of person or prop
erty' "The Territorial Governments are
subordinate and temporary, and not sovereign;
hence they can not destroy or impair the
rights of persons or property
It has usually been held that governments
were formed to protect persons and property;
but Mr. Breckenridge declares that sovereignty
can destroy rights of persons and property.
The Constitution declares that no person
shall be deprived of liberty or property with
out due process of law. This is well enough
understood, and has also been judicially in
terpreted. Legislating a person out of his
property is not a process of law. a person
can only be deprived of his property by the
Judgment of Court. The only case in which
Government can take private property is for
the public use and necessity; and then only
by making due compensation to the owner
The right of sovereignty to destroy rights Of
property does not exist in any organized
government on earth, either civilized or
savage. 1t is rather strange doctrine to be
laid down by candidate for the Presidency
of Republic.
Mr.. Breckinridge says:
ut follows that the citizens of all the States
may enter the Territories of the Union with
their property, of whatever kind, and enjoy
1T during the territorial condition without let
or hindrance, either by Congress or by the
subordinate Territorial Governments"
This claims that the right of property in
slaves is the same as in any other property
and that the citizen of a slave State has q
right to take his slave property any where
that he could take any other property, and to
be protected in its enjoyment by all branches
of the Federal Government II is logical
principle, if Mr.. Breckenridge will abide by
its logical consequences. But he declares
that after this property has been telen to the
Territories and has become established there
under Federal protection, change from a
territorial condition to a State sovereignty
may destroy it. Is other property subject to
this contingency? Can the same change
destroy rights of property in cattle, which
the citizen of slave State has brought into
a Territory can it in his farm2 If it can,
then the institutions of the Kingdom of Da-
honey would be an improvement on our
republican institutions. If it can not, then
Mr.. Breckenridge himself admits distinction
between slave property and other property;
by which property in slaves is subject to leg
islative prohibition, while other property is
not; and if it is thus subject why may not
according TO his own positions, Congress, the
representative of all the sovereign States in
its government of the Territories, exercise
this prohibition2
Mr.. Douglas in his Dorr letter-the very
letter which Senator Pugh says was SO de-
hant declaration of his principles that it
was the means of defeating his nomination
in the South-refused to be nominated on any
platform which conceded to slave property in
the Territories any greater protection than
it provided for other property. This con-
cedes the same rights to slave property as to
other property, and the same protection,
What is the same protection2 Why, ade-
quate protection. Laws to protect property
vary according to its nature. Laws to pro
tect property in horses and other cattle
differ from those to protect property in lanC
and houses. Similar protection is adequate
protection, adapted to the nature of th'
property; and certainly if other property car
not be destroyed by the change from terri
torial to State government, slave propert,
can not. Thus Mr.. Douglas in his Dor
letter, conceded broader claim than evei
Senator Davis, or any of the most conserva
tive statesmen of the South, have ever ad
vanced; yet his nomination was defeated il
the South by that letter, and a man nom
mated as a peculiar representative Of tn
claims of the South, who declares that right
of property constitutionally acquired in tn
Territories, may be abolished by chang
into State sovereignty. .ti
The most radical of the practical anti
slavery people content themselves with th
ultimatum that slavery shall be excluded b,
Congressional legislation from the Terrific
ries This does not abolish rights of prop
erty, but proposes to restrict them within
present limits. Those who enjoy this righ
of property in the States now, will enjoy 1