The register. (Monroe, La.) 185?-1861, 1860-05-24
Interventien and Non-Interven-
% ton; 81
DExooRA77g cUMszSZENUI

Forgetting the historical genesis and logical
dependence Of the great principles respecting
the rights of property in the Territories of the
United States they persist in allegations which
argue, on the part Of those who make them,
either strange obtuseness Of understanding or
sad disregard Of truthfulness. A very few
sentences will enable any who go deeper than
the mere sound Of words, to discover not only
the entire consistency Of Intervention and Non
Intervention, but also how the former idea is
the supplement and completion Of the latter
its logical outgrowth and perfection. ,5.- og.i
,In the progress, of Abolition violence there
arose clamor for the exclusion Of slavery, by
Congressional legislation, from the Territories
Of the United States. In this clamor, as sin
gle point of harmonious contact, were agreed
parties and factions respectable for numbers at
least although in other respects they we're
diverse and adverse, inimical and piebald, as
men could he. Against this demand there was
general protest. The Democratic party, with
one voice, denounced it as unfair, unpatriotic
and unconstitutional. As an offset to this sec
tional abomination, the National Democracy
affirmed the principle that Congress had no
power to exclude slavery. The Constitution
recognizes and legitimates it, aud for Terrific
ries, as we'll rs for States, that Constitution is
the supreme law-far above all Congresses and
Courts, and Of which they are the mere crea
lures, and, from which they derive their sole
authority. Nor was the Democracy alone in
this proclamation Of catholic principles. The
great majority Of the old "Whig party con-
sented to these views, and both united in oppo-
sition and protest against the fanatical demand
of Free-soilers and Aholilionists. This, then, is
the doctrine Of Non Intervention, that Congress
has no right or authority to exclude slavery
from any Of the Territories under its jurisdic-
ton. And on this doctrine the Democratic
party, during all its history, has been q unit, a
harmonious, perfect unit, until Mr.. Douglas in
troduced in its present Objectionable form, the
doctrine Of "Squatter Sovereignty" And here
in, just SO far as this principle goes with all its
important interests and radical bearings, Mr..
Douglas and his partisans are as one with the
Abolitionists of the North.
Thus We have slave property in the Terrific
rics, borne and established there by the Consli-
tuition itself. But an institution without laws,
property without protection, is an anarchy and
an anomaly. In such state of things the order
of society, the rights oSproperty and the excr-
else Of Justice could not subsist Hence the
correlative and supplementary doctrinc-thc
logical and natural neccssity-of Intervention.
While it is strcnuously maintained that Con-
gress has no authority to exclude slavery from
the public Territories, tits as strcnuousy main
tanned that Congress has power and is bound
to exert that power for the regulation and pro-
lection Of this important institution. Of this
there are many analogcs. We shall give but
one: Congress has no sort Of power to exclude
any form Of Religion from any Of its Territories
We are not aware that any such power has ever
been claimed in its behalf This is lNon-lnter-
vention. But Congress has full power and is
bound to exert that power for the full exercise
and impartial protection ofevery religion. This
is Intervention. And, clearly, they are perfectly
consistent. Nay, they are the correlative ele-
ments of one great principle. And SO of both
in reference to slavery in the Territories. They
are not two separate, much less antagonistic
things. They are consistent and harmonious
principles they are the two necessary parts of
one grand provision Of the Constitution.
The argument for Non-Intcrvention. as above
explained, is admirably presented by the fol-
lowing from the great Senator Of South Caro-
lima: a.- .,a..
Calhoun OH Squatter Sovereignty
Extract from Calhoun's speech on the Ore
gon bill, June %, 1913. Appendix to the Con-
gressional Globe, page SILL
have now shown, trust, beyond contro-
versy that Congress has no power whatever to
exclude the citizens of the Southern States from
emigrating with their property into the Terri
tories Of the United States, or TO give an cXcu-
sive monopoly of them to the North. now
propose to 60 one step further. and show that
Legislatures hare any such right. A very few
words will be sufficient for the purpose; for of
all the positions ever taken hold that which
claims the poorer for them TO be The most absurd II
the Territories belong to the United States if
the ownership. dominion. and sovereignty over
them he in the States Of the Union, then neither
the inhabitants Of the Territories nor their
Legislatures can exercise any power but what
is subordinate to them; but if the contrary
could be shown, which hold to be impossible,
it would be subject to all The restrictions to
which have shown the power of Congress. is,
and for the same reason, whatever power they
might hold, would, in the case supposed, be
subordinate to the Constitution, and controlled
by the nature and character Of our political
institutions. But if the reverse be trucif the
dominion and sovereignty over the Territories
be in their Inhabitants instead of the United
Statcs they would, indeed, in that case, have
the exclusive and absolute power of governing
them, and might exclude whom they pleased,
or what they pleased. But in that case. they
would cease to be the Territories Of the United
States the moment we acquired them and
permit them to be inhabited. The first half
dozen Of squat,ers would become the sovereigns,
with full dominion and sovereignty over them
and the conquered people of New Mexico and
California would become the soveregns of the
country Us soon as they become the Territories
of the unitad States, vested with the full right
OF excluding even their conquerors. There is
no escaping from the alternative, but by resort
ing to the greatest of all absurdities, that Of
divided sovcreignty-a sovereignty, q part of
which would reside in the United States, and
part in the inhabitants Of the Territory. How
can soyereignty-thc ultimate and supreme
power Of State-be divided? The exercise
Of the powers of sovereignty may be divided
but how can there be two supreme powerss