Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-06-08
H We publish elsewhere 4 commune

34 We publish elsewhere 4 communi.
cation from. q Democratic friend, who as
signs some reasons for differing with TIL
editor Of this paper and those in the Souti
who are willing to accept the nomination o
Judge Douglas for the Presidency, bellev
ing him to be the most available man tina
can be presented to the American people a
this time. The ground over which our cor
respondent travels is so very familiar to ev
cry Intelligent reader that we shall not con
sumo time and space By following hin
through the various stages Of the Kansa
embrogiio, &c. Suffice it to say, that w
have never believed Judge Douglas wa
responsible for the division in the Demo
cratic party. 1t was point about which
there was no two opinions, that the people
OF Kansas should regulate their own do
nestle affairs to suit themselves. This wat
the express declaration Of the Nebraska bill
1t was policy to which the Democratic
party and the President were fully commit.
ted, and which the whole country was pre-.
pared to see carried out. The action o.
the fraudulently elected Constitutional Con-
vention was designed to defeat this idea, by
not submitting unrcservedly the Constitu-
ton they had framed to the ratification OF
rejection of the people. Judge Douglas
took the position that the Constitution
should, without qualification, be submitted
to vote Of the people Of the Territory who
had to live under it, to accept or reject -
The President endorsed the action Of the
Convention, and favored the idea of sub
hitting only the slavery clause to the voters
of the Territory. This, Judge Douglas
coctended, was violation of the spirit and
intent of the Nebraska Bill, and the Presi-
dents own instructions to Governor Walker
that it was forcing upon an unwilling
people system Of State government repug-
nant to their wishes. The sequel showed
that Judge Douglas was right and the Pres
ident wrong. Judge Douglas adhered to
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which was the
law Of the land, and the President did not.
Hence, We assume that the division in the
Democratic party is not chargeable to Judge
Douglas, upon any assumption Of fairness
ors legitimacy. Any "Daralyzation" to the
'arm'' of the Administration, therefore,
is necessarily the fruit Of Mr.. Buchanan s
own action-the offspring Of his departure
from the declared policy Of the Democratic
party.
The idea that Judge Douglas dictated
Lis platform to the Charleston Convention
is simply ridiculous, and is not warranted
by anything in the whole dispute between
Douglas and the Administration. In res
ponse to private letter be wrote private
letter giving his views Of what the Democ-
racy should do and what he was willing to
do. Any other man thus written to, and
occupying similar position, would have
answered as he did. His letter was pub
lished. and this fact is to be construed into
a "d,ctation" to the Charleston Convention
There is about as much justice in this charge
as in many others preferred against Judge
Douglas, all Of which are without the least
foundation in fact.
The assumption Of our correspondent that
Judge Douglas rendered the "squatter SOW
ereignty" issue to the South - months
ago, is unsustained by the history of the
Territorial question. Judge Douglas has
rendered no new issue. He stands precise
ly where every prominent Democrat in the
South stood in 1856, asserting and main
tanning with singular ability and force the
great doctrine of non Intervention by Con-
gress with slavery in the Territories. and
insisting that the country ispledged to this
policy by all that is binding ia legislation
and obligatory by solemn compact. He
plants himself upon the legislative compro-
mise of 1850 and 1854. and the Democratic
platforms of 1852 and 56-legislation and
platforms suggested and demanded by the
South, and to which she is honorably bound
to adhere. Any departure from it, is a vi
olation Of ratified terms Of agreement and
the iuitia:ory step to the tearing up of the
compromises upon which the perpetuity of
our government is based. Mr.. Douglas
and his friends do not insist upon an empty
abstraction, as insinuated by our cores
pendent They resist the attempt to force
upon the Democratic party new test of or
thodoxy. which is inexpedient in policy and
speculative and theoretical in fact. They
resist, and rightly do 50, the imposing up
on the Northern Democracy an issue which
cannot fail to crush them hopelessly. They
are now recovering partially from the blow
they received in 1854 in the passage Of the
Nebraska bill, repeating the Legislation of
1920, which Disseminated against the
South. They fought for.our cause then
and were beaten. The sober second thought
Of the people, however, has induced many
to return to the Democratic party, and if
no new. test is presented by which the North
ern mind can be inAamed BY the appeals of