Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-26

In Review Of his recent Address 10 his
Friends and Former Constituents.

Douglas and johnson for the Presidency, upon the
ground of their advocacy Of the doctrine commonly
known as "Squatter Sovereignty" which you regard
as consistent with your former practices and pro-
fessons and with the declared policy and creed of
the Democratic party.
The cordial political relations which haze hereto
fore existed between us-the unaniInity with which
we have agreed in sentiment upon principles of
government and questions of public policy--the
high appreciation Of the value of your public ser
vices which for years, have entertained and ex-
pressed-the anxiety which you know have evinced
to obviate in some way the differences between you
and your friends upon this question of the power Of
Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery-the con-
fdelce which have long declared, and still enter
tain, in your honesty, integrity and patriotism
render it exceedingly painful in me to find you now
differing so widely from your former friends upon
the subject of Presidential election Inasmuch,
however, as your recent publication raises a ques-
ton of consistency between you and the great
body of US who have heretofore co-operated
with you and supported you q sense of impair
tial justice impels me to the painful task of
reviewing the facts and arguments with which
you have sought to fortify your position. Your
sense Of justice WILL trust, approve this course
If in the undertaking l shall find it necessa-
ry to place you In a position which 1t viii
be unpleasant for you to contemplate, you should
bear in mind that it results from necessity which
would gladly have avoided, and which you your
self have brought about As one Of your friends
and former constituents, you cannot expect me to
willingly submit to the charge of inconsistency and
an abandonment of former pledges contained in the
argument of your letter, without an effort to extri
cate myself and those who cooperate with me, and
to show that if there is any inconsistency between
us in the separation that has taken place, it lies az
your door, and not ours.
While announcing in your letter that you do not
purpose to inquire ho0 this division in the Demo-
cratic party was brought about, you proceed with
an argument the whole tenor and effect of which Is
% ar WI arp n
Breckenridge and Lane, are doing so because the
Convention at Charleston refused to adopt plat
form avowing doctrines with regard to the Ter
ritories, and IN direct antagonism TO the previous
doctrines of the party on that question.
understand you, also as attempting to depreciate
the Importance of the issue upon which the Demo-
cratic party has separated from Mr.. Douglas and
his friends, by asking, was this division upon the
question Of slavery in the States of this confedera-
cy? No. Slavery in the District of Columbia? No.
Was it upon the right of citizens of the savehoding
States to have their property of that description re
turned to them from the freeStates in pursuance Of
the provisions fthe Constitution andlaws fthe Unit
edStates! No. Upon all these questions the Democrat
ic party was a unit" So it might have been said in
I84S when small faction of the Northern Democ-
racy Though enough to lose the elecuon,) slough
ed off under the lead of Mr. Van Buren,. / did not
understand Mr.. Van Buren, when he separated from
us in l64s, TO have declared a willingness to In
terere with Slavery in the States in the District
law We repudiated Mr. Van Buren, because he,
like Douglas had declared in favor of heresy, in
connection with the subject Of Slayeryn the Terri
tories that was Yiolative Of the Constitution and
unjust the saveholding States of the Union. The
only difference between Mr.. Van Buren, then, and
Mr.. Douglas now, is that the former claimed FOR
Congress the power to prohibit Slavery in the Ter
ritories while the latter claims the power for the
creature Of Congress, Territorial Legislature, to
prohibit it. The most striking difference between
IL. L, GOD
forth as the champion of his heresy in lS4S, the
Supreme Court had not adjudicated the question
and declared it unconstitutional, while Mr.. Douglas
in 1850 stands forth the champion of his heresy IN
defiance of the Supreme Court, whatever may have
been or may hereafter be its decision. The same
spirit of Jefferson and Jackson which animated the
Democratic party when it repudiated Mr.. Van Bu-
rem its former leader, in defiance of his supposed
strength at the North animated it in 1860, when 1t
discarded Mr.. Douglas dspite of his popularity and
power to do mischief II there is any one thing IN
the history of the Democratic party which should
entitle it to the confidence and admiration of the
patriotic portion Of tie American people, 1t Is the
readiness with which it has discarded its first and
foremost men, whenever, overcome by wantOn
ambition, they have forsaken principle with the
hope of increased chances of political preferment
All along the political highway stand these sad
monuments to ambition that oVerleaped ITSELF
teaching lessons of wisdom, though often unheeded
to the over anxious expectants that travel the
way God grant that the Democratic party may
ever continue more devoted to its republican prin
ciples than to the fortunes Of men; for If the time
should ever come when a permanent majority of
the American people lost to all the attributes
Of freemen as TO forsake principles for men, our
present form Of government must go down, and one
fashioned after the despotisms of the old world must
take its place. No one, | sure, will subscribe
more heartily to this sentiment than yourself.
So far as the question of slavery IN the Terrific
res is concerned you correctly state the caGse Of
our divisions at Baltimore 1.-The rights and pow
ers of those living within the jurisdiction and under
the authority of such governments over the institu
tons of slavery, while under territorial govern
ments : and the duties and powers of the United
States Government. in all its departments, to pro-
tect the TqtS of shareholders their slaves within
such territorial governments, against the Will and
wishes of a majority of the inhabitants thereof"
involved you correctly state the ground of our de-
vision; the State Rights Democracy, in the support
of Breckenridge and Lane, maintaining that, when.
necessary it will be the duty o: the Federal Govern
mert in all its departments, to protect the savehold
in his fright" of property against the encroach
ments of any and every one, which Mr.. Douglas and
his friends deny-they affirming that Territorial
Legislature, elected under government established
by Congress, may violate these rights and distroy
the relation Of master and slave, which we deny.
You then trace the history of this question from
the introduction of the Clayton Compromise in
l94S, up to the present period, giving your
own course in connection Herewith, showing
that the doctrine of Congressional mon
intervention " in establishing prohibiting
slavery in the Territories has been the creed of the
Democratic party ever since, and argue to show that
the heresy of Mr.. Douglas, that not Congress, but
the creature of Congress, Territorial Legislature,
may intervene to prohibit slavery, IS consistent with
that creed; but that the doctrine Of Mr.. Breckin-
ridge and his friends, which is, as they understand
the Supreme Court to have decided that neither
Congress nor Territorial Legislature can inter
vene and that if the latter does intervene to
destroy the rights of slave-holding inhabltant
il will be the duty of the Government TO protect
those "rights" against such intervention. This,
say, l understand you TO regard a departure
from the former creed of the Democratic party.
Now, let me travel over the same ground that you
have, and present, briefly, our view of the sub
ject and wherein think you have run into error,
Internationally, believe and have done both your
self and those you differ with injustice
In 1916, during the prosecution of the Mexican
war, and when it was seen that it would most likely
terminate with the acquisition of territory, as
an indemnity for the past and security for the
future" and when bill was pending in Congress
making an appropriation for the prosecution OF the
war, the celebrated WitnOt PToUiSo was offered
Again when the war ended and the treaty OF 1913
was pending before the Senate, the WilmOt Proviso
was moved as amendment thereto, making it fun
damenta article of that treaty that there shall be
neither slavery involuntary servitude IN the Ter
rtOries hereby ceded." This unjust proposition was
South and every Democratic Senator from the North,
but three voting against it. Here was the MAIN
tenance Of great principle principle declaring
the EQUAL RIGHTS Of the States and of the citizens.
The Territory which we about acquiring
under that treaty was purchased by the common
blood and treasure of slave and free State men, and
was not to be dedicated to the the exclusive use and
benefit of one section. 1t was asserted on the
trarv that it should be held in trust by the Federal
Government for the equal enjoyment of the citizens
of all the States with whatever, Of property tLey
might be possessed and should find it to their inter-
est to carry with them, leaving it to these inhabi-
tants when they should have accumulated in sufi-
,ieut numbers to justify the formation of State
sovereignty to determine in their organic law wheth
p they would have a slave or free State.
Soon after the adoption of the treaty with Mexico,
n the same year, lS4S, the question of providing
temporary governments for these Territories by
Congress- came up. Again the Abolitonists, many
If whom were then known as Wings, insisted upon
ldopting the WilmOt PTogiSO, prohibiting slavery.
4 great deal of division and much excitement, you
NOW, grew out of it. To settle this vexed cues
ion a select committee was raised In the Senate OF
which remember Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, Mr..
Dickinson of New York and Mr.. Calhoun, of South
Jarolina were members. 1t resulted in what was
,nown as the Clayton Compromise " bill, which
assed the Senate by the VOTE in part of Mr.. Douglas
nd came to the House of which you were men,
er and there received your sanction. That bill also
mboded the principle of "nOninterventi0n" on the
art of Congress in establishing prohibiting"
laverv and it did more Il embodied the principle of
qa1,J of