The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-05-30
WHOLE NUMBER 634

eueCt. All tney osk, therefore, oil you, Is
non. n.intervention-hands off in, the language
OF the Georgia Convention. Let the sub
ject be bunished forever from the halls of
Congress and the political arena, and refe.
red TO the Territories, with the right to ap-
peal to the Court. and there is an end of the
controversy. Mr.. Douglas said that he
should then proceed to show that the Presi-
dent understood this question wheR he sign
ed the Kansas bill. An extract from Pres
ident Pierce's Message of 1866 was read.1
President Pierce then speaks Of this bill as
adopting the great principle of Popular Sow
ereignty in the Stntes, and also in the sin.
cipent States" He unquestionably refer.
red to the Territories as "incpient States"
and used the words "popuiar sovereignty"
as embracing the rights of the people in the
States. When the Senator from Mississip.
pi said this doctrine had its first trial on the
plains of Kansas and bore it's first fruits
there, and described its legitimate fruits as
resulting in anarchy, violence, bloodshed
and every imaginable evil, and President
Pierce says these acts were abuses of the
principle OF Popular Sovereignty, and abuses
of the act, and the principle itself is BY no
means responsible for these abuses, all he
(Mr. Douglas) had to say in answer to the
allegation Of the Senator is, that by the au.
thority of the Chief under whom he held
the high office of Secretary of War, they
were abuses. He was amazed that the
Senator should cite abuses and frauds which
occurred in violation Of this principle, under
the Administration of which he was a rul-
ing spirit as evidence that the principle
which brought that Administration into ex.
istence was a vicious and dangerous one.
He thought the Senator had given in his
adhesion to the doctrine, and that he looked
with pleasure on the passage ofthe Nebras-
ka Act as measure Of value to the South
ern States, and that he would have been the
first to defend it; but we find he takes pleas
ure in citing these very abuses in justifica-
tion of his course when he fought the prin-
cipe, and in verfcation of what he told US
before the South agreed to acquiesce. He
should.psss on to the next chapter In the
history of this principle of n.intervention,
which will be found in the proceedings of
the National Convention at Cincinnati
in 1856
All will remember that Alabama sent
delegates to Cincinnati, demanding that the
Platform should be made first, and then fur.
nishing an ultimGtIn which, if not acceded
to, they would Withdraw. That was, that
the Convention should recognize the princi.
pie of non intervention. That was incor-
porated into the Platform in language so
explicit no one could misunderstood it. "a
portion of the Platform was read. The
Convention affirmed the doctrine in the
plainest language. The Platform also de-
clares that the same principle was affirmed
by both parties in 1859, showing that the
party understood in 1856 that the Conven-
ton which nominated Pierce in 1852 had
affirmed the same doctrine of non-interven-
ton, and they declare that the principle was
correctly applied in the Kansas and Nebras.
ka bill, and that il was a great Conservative
principle on which alone the peace and per.
petuity Of the Union could be preserved.-
These were declared at Cincinnati unanim-
ously. The vote was taken by States, and
every delegation from every State was
unanimous. There was not one man from
Mississippi protesting against this principle,
nor from Alabama, South Carolina, GeorG
gia, or from any other Southern State. But
we are now to be told that the platform
which was adopted by the unanimous vote in
1856, is so unsound and so rotten four years
after as to justify the very States adopting it
then in breaking up the party, because we
insis, upon adhering to 1t now. Not only
did the party unanimously affirm this doc.
trine in 1856, but the candidates accepted
on that plat orm, with construction which
they themselves put upon it, and which is
the same as he (Mr. Douglas) had ever pla-
ced upon it. (Mr. Buchanan's letter accept.
ance was read.) Mr.. Buchanan not only
accepted on the platform, but he was kind
enough 10 tell the people what it meant
"that the people of Territory like those Of
a State should decide for themselves wheth-
or slavery should not exist within their linn
i,s." This was Squatter Sovereignty in its
broadest form.
!, Mr.. Buchanan told the people that slavery
) could not exist there unless the people OF
the Territory said so, and it should exist il
they did say so. He was elected on that con.
) struction OF the platform. He (Mr. Douglas)
did not ask for that construction; he only ask
: ed that it be re.adopted, and let it construe
: itself. But Mr.. Buchanan was sound on that
: platform in 1856, with construction identi.
cal with that which is now denounced as
= heresy. The distinguished gentleman who
, was nominated on the same ticket, under
; stood the platform in the same way, and af-
, ter the nomination he returned to his home
| at Lexington, Kentucky. And when his
] nei!hbors assembled to congratulate him on
, his good fortune, Mr.. Breckinridge made a
speech in reply, showing how he understood
y the Kansas bill and the Cincinnati platform.
3 tPart of Mr.. Breckiuridge's Lexington
2 speech was read He (Mf. DoIglas) stood
q. on that platform now; and as he had had
t difficulty in harmonizing with his political
e friends with respect to platform, he now
}. tendered them Mr.. Buchanan's letter oil, ac-
O centance and Mr.. Breckinridge's Lexington
is sneech of acceptance, let each one construe
o it for himself. He would not dot an "i' OF
o cross ST." Will gentlemen take their own
e language? He was willing to be accom-
\ modating. He would not insist on plat
n form taken from his own speeches or writ
= inps, but he could pick them up all over the
III Senate and all over the country, from speech
9 es and writings of those who are now ar
8 roionipe him as not being sound on the sla-
u very question. [Applause in the galleries
e He spoke Of these things with entire resPect'
!. and not for the purpose of condemnation, q
i placing any man in a false position. y
t these gentlemen stand now where they did
in 1886, he was with them. II they do not
O than the question arises Who has chang
i edq He did not complain If they hat
d changed : but he had a right to ask tha
}. thew would furnish him with those argu
h ments and reasons which induced the
o change in their minds, in order thathe nigh
Il correct his errors too, il indeed he were il
# error, He did not believe in never chang
I inc and though he claimed a very consist
j, ent record as d public man, he had hodiie,
t his opinions on many questions, and tool
It more pleasure in retracting an error than Il
| &, Il All he ahk od q a. IN =