Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-07-03
Fol. The ENQUIRER.
PETERSBURG, juno 90, 1860.

H.. ulld So
tho address OF the twenty-five seeding dele
gates Of Virginia, from the Charleston cohyeh'
ff;on adjourned TO Baltimore, may be found III
two SENTENCES in the early part Of that address
"to the Democracy Of Virginia" 1t was III
that the nth Of the address should have been
nut, as it is, in the foreground. 1t Is plainly
set out in these words, to wit: 80.
"When tho Convention first aSSeinoseu IL
Charleston, about one-third oil Its members
were the ayowed and eager part'Sans o. Il
Northern candidate who remains tine conSP!c''-
GUS champion Of 4 political dogma when lta'
been condemned as unconstitutional by Inc gu
prcnc Court. As now urged, it has dege"e-
rated into Il mere anti-slavcry principle, tend
ins to divide parties by geographical llne' IL
is less candid but not less sectional than Tie
leading tenet Of the Republican party
The two ideas are that popular sovereignty
in the territories has been condemned and
adjudicatcd against, and that popular sovereign
" is IAN anti-Siavcry principle 1t is not IN
tended br Inc to investigate the exposition o!
the secondary causes Of the secession. II there
* nothing Of truth in the first and but little IN
the n~racticai purport Of the second OF those
ideas then | submit that the position ol the Sc
ccdcrS, the direct tendency of whose movement
is TO p disruption of the union OF these states,
will be shown to he umlefcndcd and deienceieSS.
It will not be denied, | suppose, that Whilst i'e
seccders are acquitted OF any ann 20 u'SSoi'e
the Union, vet, their movement necessarily IN
yolving a split Of the Democratic party
which is q momcntouS event, must DC
regarded rs looking to tla! 'tiSunicI.
in case the congressional protection almch nj,
and the avowed object desired, is not obtained,
unless il le truc that the scccders are willing
to split the party. nMd in the event Of defeat OF
their nominees in the election. are also willing
TO admit that their failure will mol hc sufficient
cause Cor di<soiving the Gulou. Then the III
ference mus, be that the ScccticrS we're wiling
to break up the party for Il cause esteemed by
themselves not sufficient in their failure 10 So
cure their object, to justify tllcla IN gong on,
in the direction Of the tendency ot their move
ment, TO break up the Union. They being the
judges, the unity Of the party is necessary to
save the Union in honor, unless their wing Oh
the party shall succeed in the election.
The Northern candidate spoken Of * Ste.
pilcn i. Douglas. 1t is his political dogma
Of popular sovereignty, which is declared 10
have been condemned lis Enconslitut!oi:a hy
the Supreme Court in the bred Scott caSc.-
Revcrliy Johnson has declared thar "thiN ""'-
iyint is not only not inconsistent with The
opinion OF the Supreme Court, but Is main,
;aineil b. It's principles" That is respectable
authority. He argued the case before tic Court.
The opinion Of very few, if Of any living iian.
is entitled 10 more influence than his, OIL the
record nt III adjudication, As 10 what IS lis eE.
tent. suppose it will nos lee denied By any
body, that the Dre'l Scott suit arose GU the
question:. or at least depended on the question,
Of the power ur Congress 10 enact, rs they did,
the Missouri Restriction. lE tie rirw Of those
who contend that u tcrri:orIa! people have no
authority with which they can invest ti!ci" ic.
.]islaturc, except only such aS is conferred OH
them 81 Congress in organizing ~ll!c!.!, IL is
candidly conceded that the Ilrcd Scot decision
NAV be regarded Is having decided the q;lcS-
ton OF tie power y! the Territorial Legislature,
as well as inat nf the power o! Congress over
the subject. But tla: is not the view OF Doug.
las. That is tho exact poist in dispute, n"mr|y,
whether the territorial people have Or have not
a right o! SelEgOrcrnrncnt Independently oi
CungrgsS-a right simultaneously cnsuring
their organization and inherently residing III
item as al 'inchoatc State do not agree
with Douglas that they haze such Il power
This is my opinion that IL hiS-and mine is
the opinion Of the ScccderS. This, repeat. is
tie unsettled pO;ntin the vehement condensation.
If Douglass opinion Is right, suppose it will
| be- conceded that the question can only arise on
m ciinc,mcn; hg he itrrii"rini Legislature,
founded in = claim Of right to exercise that in
| dependent power. It will he admitted, that no
sucl. ease las arisen and been decided. That
is patent. Then. Iscyerdy .Iohn<on'S opinion
is the true ore. to this extent Of that opinion
of his. is rccitcd above in his own words, 20
wit tIat Douglas doctrine Is rot inconsistent
will! the opinion Of the Supreme Court His
doctrine NAY, and think will, turn ont 10 be
contrary to the OPINION, whcHcyerti the Court shall
give it, on the question Of the power, arising
on 4 territorial enactment. Douglas only desires
that it may be aSccrtaincd by the decision Of
the salac court, in 4 case arising on n territorial
enactment, whether his opinion, rs is cl'ined
~ Rcvcrdy johnson. is maimtgiaed JY tie
priHciVies Of the Drel Scott decision.
If his doctrine shall not be so SUSTAINED.
Douglas declared the other day, in the Senate,
that the decision against his doctrine should be
enforced By the whole power OF the general
government. Then the declaration Of the Sc
ccdcrS, that Douglas political dogma has been
condemned by the Court. falls to the ground.
Nor is that dogma TO be- dreaded, unless the
Court is distrustcd. If it is true that the
Court has condemned the doctrine, it is OILY 4
doubt that it will not do SO again, but will fail
to BIZ consistent with itself, that can so fcarflllly
deter the scccdcls; for Douglas says that the
whole power Of the Government mHst he cX-
crlc,l TO carry into effect the judicial Decree
when il shall have been pronounced.
And now. more briefly, and ! invoke equal
simplicity, rs to that other idea CT the sccedcrs
that Douglas doctrine is IAN anti-slavcry
principle" repeat that | do not surrender
INV dissent from his doctrine. Its antagonist
Congressional protectiOn-is, think, tho con-
Stititional right Of the citizens Of the slave
States, who NAV wish with their slaves to take
up their abode in a Territory, in any latitude.
Douglas admits their right so to 20 there
Iow long NAV they stay there. is tEc qncs-
tioa. What power can drive them away
rrueat that Congressional protection during
the Territorial existence. * right and ought tn
be insisted on b. The South, anti coi:ccdc,! by
the people and the representative men OF The
non SiaYchulding States, as IN essential OF con-
sti.ntinral integrity. OfitSelf, it is right; bnI
i,v itself il is not CROUCH nor Of any WORTH
much less of sufficient magnitude tor the Secc-
dcrs to make m issue Oh, ;lc solution oil
which is 10 :cli the fate vi the lnIon.-
By Itself, il carries the s~lavc-nwncr 10 the lett
bank of a turbil stream, III! gives him no
bridge 10 carry him over. The stream Is too
dcep for him TO wade it, and he ca:lIcL swim
aralns! the current. The figure is no; at FAULT
at any point, but the facts will take hold OF the
Judgment as powerfully as the figure Will the
fancy Of IL. Intelligent reader.
The facts in orr system are, that III" slave
owners IN . territory, with q majority al >cch'
will NO, stand i'll need Of any Foreign aI'i nT
nrot.c.ior. Their majority Will protect their
property. In this application Of the dot;rine
Of ropular sovereignty. IT Is y rkn.Sl.NiE-
ny pE!NClPI.H.-not anti ~sIaTeT?. IS Tie
Srccders' address declares It to Ut. mat Is
not all. \ large minority "i slave owHcr>' VITA
q few men, from a sense Of justice. +'IcccrinG
then. ard giving them the maj 'rlt.y. would be
all sufficient. Then il HIS; be tie cas-" that
.t1ysiga-;har is. federal iIo'rri'"'' ""n'H be-
and could only be, n.e''"l IN IL" cast