The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-05-30

buked this doctrine of intervention, and
placed her foot upon It. In Alabama Mr..
Yancey led of, sustained by ths same body
OF men who so lately attempted to break up
the Charleston Convention, and Alabama
like Mississippi told Mr.. Yancey TO obey the
laws and acquiesce in their great principles.
In Georgia the battle ragged fercely, and the
Senator from that State (Mr. Toombs) will
bear testimony he had to form a union OF
Union men against the oppoDents'of these
measures. and when the election came,
Georgia decided in favor of the Compromise
measures by about 81 900 majority. The
opponents themselves became submission
lists in turn, but they submitted by compul.
sion OF their people. So in South Carolina,
the Rhetts, led the forces against these
measures, and the gallant and patriotic But
Ter, although he opposed the measures here,
fet it his duty 10 sustain the authorities, and
South Carolina decided against these men
who are going 10 break parties and Unions
on this question of intervention. Here you
have the verdict Of the American people
North and South in favor OF the doctrine of
non-intervention, and the Southern inter.
ventionists, who had been defeated and over
thrown, came to the conclusion they would
submit. We said to them, "AIthough you
have erred on this question, We will fcrgive
you" We received the Senator from Mis-
sissippi, and granted him quarter, after he
had been condemned.
Mr.. Davis Gin his seat-I scorned it.
Mr.. Douglas sir, as I scorned hi:
quarter the other day, and like the spirit
in which he sCorns it. But, sir, the Con.
ventlon at Baltimore ratified and decided in
favor of these compromise measures. Gen.
Pierce was on that issue, and was elected
and the Senator from Mississippi became
Secretary of War by virtue of the same is
sue. These are stubborn facts. When the
party came together the friends of the Com.
promise measures made no issue. We were
generous, and did not remind them of their
defeat and humiliation, but recognized them
as our own equals, and never expected to be
told that we were to be pursued to the deatt
and no quarter granted whenever they acci
dentalIy get the power. We are tolerant
and if we succeed now, we don't propose tt
prescribe any man SO long as he remains il
the Democratic organization and supports
its nominee. Mr.. Douglas then asserted
that his principle was carried ont in tbt
Kansas and Nebraska bill. At that time
the Senate had a Chairman of the Commit
tee on Territories who did unquestionably
reflect the sentiments Of the body, and o
the Democratic party. 1t having become
necessary to organize the Territory of Kan
sas and Nebraska, the Committee reported
q bill on the 4h of January, which set ior,f
distinctly the principles on which they pro
posed to organize these Territories. 1t wo
then distinctly proposed that the question o
Slavery should forever be banshed from th
halls OF Congress, and be remanded to tn
people of the Territories. No man coul
be excused for not knowing the true mean
ing of that bill. 1t was that Congress re
nounce forever all right or pretext to inter
fere with slavery in the Territories, eithe
to prohibit or protect. The report of tn
Committee was perfectly clear, and tn
terms Of the bill still more explicit.
Mr.. Pugh read extracts from the bill.
Mr.. Doug uglas-They repealed the Missouri
Compromise because it wos inconsisten
with the non-intervention doctrine, and 70
the purpose of applying that principle. an
bOnShng the slavery question from Con
gress, and remanding it to the people of tn
Territories. That was the only object
Every Senator who voted for it so declare
that non Intervention was the rule OF tn
Compromise measures Of 1850.
Southern men then objected to putin
this in the bill; it was rather bitter pi
for them, but he insisted on their swulown
it as necessary to the passage of the meas
ure; for the bill declared that the people Q
the Territories should be left free to do q
they pleased under the CoDstitution-th
Courts TO determine the meaning Of tn
Constitution. Non-intervention by Cor
gress was the doctrine OF the bill; that Cor
gress should never interfere for any purpos
whatever, either to introduce, prohibit {
protect Slavery, and expressly stipulate
that the old French law protecting SLAYER
should not be revived. Mr.. Badgers ament
ment was put in for this express purpose
The only point of difference at that tim
was as to the extent Of the limitation impo
/ ed by the Constitution on the authority
, the Territorial Legislature, and it was agree
that the Courts should determine that, al
the question never came again into the Sci
ate. He quoted from Mr.. Hunters speet
to sustain this view. He then proceeded
show that the Southern people understot
, the matter at the time just as he did. 4
, read the resolution OF the Georgia Legisl
' ture OF 1854, after the passage OF the Kal
e sas bill, indorsing that legislation to suppo
4. this statement. Those resolutions were
d good a platform as he wanted. He WI
willing to adopt them without dotting an
0 crossing t. The country then understoo
the measure as he understood it. TT
House of Representatives understood it
the same way. Mr.. Richardson, who r.
4 ported the bill in the House, was made Il
y Democratic candidate tor Speaker at Il
t next session against Banks. He was oppo
2 ed on the ground of being Squatter Sow
n reignty man, and wrote letter iE which
0 clearly announced the doctrine of the abs
d lutte power Of the people Of Territory ov
/. Slavery. Yet after that he received Il
Q vote of Southern Democracy, with one
n two exceptions. A distinguished gentlem
d from South Carolina, who, up to the time
Y writing this letter, had refused to vote
i Mr.. Richardson, now came to his support
J, the l0sth ballot. Laughter.l He belle
). ed he was as sound on the question as N
l. Richardson. Who had changed since the
d Was it he ? No. II southern men chan
/. ed their opinions he had no fault to find,
e if they had done so they ought honestly
h avow it. 1.-The could forgive them for chan
10 ing, could they not magnanimously forgi
It him for adherng consistently to his form
j, doctrines. In 1866 Alabama also insist
o upon the declaration at Cincinnati of I
Is doctrine Of non intervention. She symp
l, thized with Mr.. Richardson, the leader
d the Kansas bill in the House, and indors
ii the support given him by the Democra
% members Of Congress. The Alabama Co
70 vention Of 1866 construed the Kansas.N N
o braska bill just as he did, and instructed
10 delegates to Cincinnati to withdraw unle