The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1860-08-14
compromised with him by sending it bAk for r,ti-


compromised with him by sending it btek for r,,;.
fcation or rejection by the people. 4
will now notice more at length the obec,;ors
to Mr.. Douglas because of what is called his soun-
ter sovereign or territorial hercsies. Mr. Douglas
maintains that Territorial Legislature can estab-
lish or prohibit slavcry.as they please Ina word
he saws tllat slavery may be interdictcd by Gun
friendly territorial eg;slon, and that the people
of a> Territory can by ao',-ccuon keep it out of n
Territory. His opponents say that Territorial
Legislature has 10 right to lcgsiatc upon the SUBJ
icct one way or Tic other, and that it is the duty
of Congress to pass laws TO protect the right Of
the STAKEHOLDER to his slaves in any and al the
territories. If lis opponents are wrong, he must
he RIGHT. and therefore cni,lcd-to Sthc support of
the South. Let us see. Whatever power Con-
rrcss had overt the subject Of slavery referred
to the Territorial Legislature and the Supreme
Court in the Kansas Nebraska Act. That Act
SAYS that the .porcrs Territorial Legislature
staN ertend 10 all riyhgM subjects. of legislation,
subject only 10 the Constitution. Now, if prOtce-
ton is ryhym subject of legislation, it has been
referred to the Territorial Legislatures and to the
Supreme Court If further proof was wanting on
this point. it could be furnished by reference to
speeches made by Orr, Toombs, Cobb, Stephens
Breckenridge, (your own candidatc,) and host of
other Southern Democrats. They all agreed that
Congress was to have nothing to do with the qucs-
ton of slavery in the Territories, either protect
ing, establishing prohibiting or abOlishing slave
ry in The language OF the Kansas-Nebraska Act
That Act provides the mode and manner of pro-
tec,ing slave property in the Territories. The
faith of Georgia and the entire South Is plgHted as
above indicated. Why depart from that faith?
The South dcthc agreement, and the South is
bound by it, Mr. Douglas is also bound by the
agreement Has he departed from his plightc,l
faith 2? If he has not then the South will continue
to be bound until lie locs. Bat it is said that hc
has departed from his faith, because he contends
that The Supreme Court has not decided the ques-
ton which it WAS agreed should be referred to
that Cour pd the Court decide the question in
issue? If did, then the South is not bound, and
Douglas should he rcpudatcd. Mr.. Rererdy
Johnson, perhaps the ablcst jrrist in the world,
who argued The Drcd Scott case before the Su-
prcmc Court for tl,c South, says il was not decided
lie ought to know. If you were to argue case
in a court, would you not know what points you
made and what was decided i'll the case? The
question referred in the kansas-Ncbraska Act,
WAS the power of a Territorial Legislature to es-
laLlish or r~ohih; slavery. In other words the
validity or inyadty const,utionality or uncon-
sttutiunaliiy Of territorial law effccting slavery
in the territories was referred for adjudication by
Supreme. i-,Y Was the valiL;:y6r :::'.ld
ly OF any such law decided in the bred Scot case?
Nssurcdly not. Can the validity or nvalidity of
II law be decided other than by mere o5irtcr dictd,
before the law is passed? 1t cannot. How, then,
is ii possible that the Supreme Court decided the
Question in Tie Drcd..Sc case? There was
territorial law before the Court of which they
coud say il IS unconstitutional" | grant that
the Court n''@Gf'a pIciiy Strongly that such q
law rouit be unconstitutional But Il law cannot
= be unconstitutional. before it exists. Therefore
t.c Court has not decided thcE question which it
WAS agreed should be referred for their adjudica-
lion. II 50, lIr. Douglas s-rght, AMI Georgia and
the South should abide by their agreement Why
have they departed from their faith? Their last
pucrilc, insignificant excuse has fallen to the
ground They are responsible for the dismember-
mcni of The Democratic party, which, in its entire
ty, was the only salvation of the country. Let
the consequences be upon their heads.
What harm would the Douglas doctrine do the
South if prevailed? 1t is notorious fact that
under the operation Of that doctrine, the two most
Southern territories now belonging TO the United
States have passed laws for the establishment and
protection of slave property in their midst. 1 al
ludc to New Mexico and the Indian Territory. II
that is the WAY the Douglas doctrine harms the
South would like for her to be harmed in the
same way in every territory where the law OF ma
turc will permit slavery prodtably to go.
Ii is generally conceded that wherever the eli
mate, soil and productions arc favorable TO the in
tiodncion of slavery. there slavery will go, and
rice rerya This being tried, wherever slavery can
he made profitable there will slavery go in despite
of law. and wherever it cannot be made profitable,
there ii will not 20, laws for its protection to the
Contrary Notwithstanding. Why, then, break ap
this union on an impracticable issue-a mere a0-
straction? see no necessity for it. But do
sec that the doctrine of protection if pursued to
its legitimate consequences. will cvcnuate in q
dissolution of the Union, provided the Broken
ridge men will stick to their doctrine. If Con-
grcss refuse to pass law for the protection of
slave properly in tho territories, what vii the
Breckenridge party do: viii they be for ,isun-
ion. If they are not. they will have to tal back
on the Douglas doctrine. prefer the latterto dis
union under the circumstances.
Yours truly
SAW Two SUNSETS IN ONE DAY.-Onc Of the fin
ost s;rb,s Professor Steiner the aronaut says he