Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-08-10

II w NC HccGoSdIy w Vic Hdi inoiy uhU 0uo
cess Of the great Democratic party.
The doctrine Of Congressional interfer-
ence, for the protection of slavery in the
Territories after the establishment Of a Ter
ritorial Legislature, comes up before us
stamped with the veto Of every Democratic
Convention which has passed upon its merits.
It was repudiated in 1913, in the face Of
Mr.. Yanceys vehement protest. 1t was re-
pudiated in 1852; it was repudiated in 1856;
and it was esteemed non essential to the
prosperity Of the South by the most distin-
guished statesmen in the United States Con-
gress. See the position Of Mr.. Calhoun, AID
other Southern Statesmen, on the Clayton
compromise. More especially, see the sup
port extended to the principle of non-inter-
yention, and the submission of all difficult
ties growing out Of the question Of slavery
in the Territories to the remedial power Of
the Federal Cou, is in the passage of the
Kansas Nebraska act of 1854
70 our apprehension the notion that Con-
gresslonal intervention for the protection Of
his slave property by a Southerner, would
ever be demanded, or if demanded, efee-
tive, conflicts with all the motives which
control the volition Of mankind and the
plainest principles Of common sense ard rea
son. That a Southerner will desert or pass
by the richest and most fertile soil the sun
ever shone upon, pregnant with the resour-
ces Of wealth, ready to quicken into develop
ment under the bonefoent hand Of slave la
Dor, where the institution is protected and
fortified by public opinion and the funda-
mental laws of the community, that he
should leave this field of enterprise and
transport his negro, sign and value in
the South for fifteen hundred dollars, to a
Territory where many ofthe inhabitants are
Aboltionists. ready to snatch him away so
soon as he touches the soil, is presupposing
a condition Of ignorance or foolhardiness
upon the part Of Southern citizens which we
can never agree exists.
Admitting, however, this folly to be con-
summated, would the Abolitionists who steal
the negro be likely to keep him in public
view until the arrival Of the T. S. officer and
troops for the purpose Of restoring him to
! his owner The history of the recapture of
fugitive slaves when the negro is in the
hands of public officials and under his mas
ter's eye, teaches lesson Of wisdom in this
1 regard. The views of some Of the most vio-
| lent Of the intervention school Of politicians
of the present day, upon the subject Of sla-
very in the Territories, may not be uninter-
esting, and we insert some extracts from
speeches made by the Hon. Howell Cobb
and the Hon JEFF. Davis. That Of Mr.
Cobb delivered at West Chester, Pa, Sep
| TENDER, 1856-that Of Mr.. Davis, at Ban
Me-, 1858.
Mr.. Howell Cobb said:
ssI stand upon principle. hold that the Wiz
of the majority of the people OF Kansas should de-
eide this question; and say here tonight before
this people and before this country, that for one
shall abide the decision of the people there. hold
to the right of the people Of self-gevernment am
willing for them to de eide this questian. l stand
by my principles l intend to carry them out; |
care not how they operate. Principles are dearer
to me han the results of any election AID contest
in Kansas. would not plant slavery upon the soil
of any portion of Gods earth against the will OF
the people. The Government ofthe United States
should not force the institution slavery upon the
people either of the Territories Of the States
against the will Of the people, though my voice
could bring about that result. | stand upon the
principle-the people of my State decide it for
themselves. applause That is the Constitu-
IA gentlemen here interrupted Mr.. Cobb, with
his consent, to enquire whether he meant that the
people of the Territory, before forming their Con-
stiution should have the power to exclude slavery
or that theRshould have the power to pass upon It
when they form thei Constitution. He also desi-
red the speaker to explain not only his view on the
subject but also the view which is advocated by
those who stand with him in the Southern States,
and support Mr.. Buchanan.l
Mr.. Cobb, resuming, said :-sE Citizens,
there h as been all the history OF this SIG~
very matter a more purely theoretical issue, than
the one involved in the question propounded to me
by my friend, and will shoE it TO you. Il will
state to you the position .of the advocates of this
doctrine of non-interyentien, on which there are
different opinions held; hut viii show that it Is
the purest abstraction in political point OF view,
that ever was proposed for political discussion
There are those who hold that the Constitution car
ries all the institutions of this country into all the
territories of the Union that slavery, being one CT
the institutions recognized by the Constitution
goes with the Constitution into the Territories OF
the United States and that when the territorial
government is organized, the people have no right
TO prohibit slavery there until they come to form
State constitutions. That is what my friend calls
Southern doctrine There is another class Whc
hold that the people of the territories in their ter
ritor1al state, and whilst acting territorial
iegislature have right to decide upon the ques-
ton whether slavery shall exist there during their
territorial states and that has been dubbed squatter
soyereigntv Now, You preceive that there is but
one point of difference between the advocates of
the two doctrines. Each holds that the people
have the right to decide the question in the terri
tory; one holds that it can be done through the
ritoria legislature, and whilst it has territorial
existence-the other holds that it can be done only
when they come to fern State constitution. But
those who hold that the territorial legislature
not pass law prohibiting slavery, admit that un
less the territorial legislature pass laws for its pro-
lection, slavery will not go there. Therefore, prac
tically majority Of the people represented in the
territorial legislature decides the question. Wheth-
err they decide by prohibiting it, according to the
one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws to pre-
tect it, as contended for by the ether party is im~
material. The majority of the people by the action
of the territorial legislature will decide the ques
ton; and all must abide the decision when made
(Great applause)
Jefferson Davis speech, Bangor, Maine,
in 1853, compared with the declarations OF
Judge Douglas:
eff the inhabitants Of any territory should re-
fuse to enact such laws and police regulations as
would give security to their property to his it
would be rendered more or less ValueleSs, in pro-
portion to the difficulties of holding without such
protection. In the case of property in the labor
of man, or what is usually called slave property,
the insecurity would be so great that the owner
could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though
the right would remain, the remedy being with
held it would follow that the owner would be
practically debarred, by the circumstances of the
case, from taking slave property into territory
where the sense Of the inhabitants opposed to
its introduction. So much fo~ the Oft repeated fall
lacy OF forcing slavery upon any community"
And just at this stage of the proceedings.
when our vote was first in convention cast
in opposition to the majority of the Virginia
delegation, we propose to discuss that pet
bantling of some of the Virginia seceders.