The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25

enough to divide. Laughter. Her cham.
pion returned back; into the northern con-
federacy. Was it to keep watch, and guard
an abolition frontier for the benefit of the
cotton States? Is Delaware to be received
into Mr.. Yanceys southern confederacy af-
ter o while? Will he consent to allow Vir-
ginia to come? Will North Carolina be
accepted by him? Will Tennessee be per-.
mitted to come in, now that she has got rid
of her free.soil Senator? Will he allow
Kentucky to join, when such Abolitionists
as Clay and Crittenden have ceased to reps
resent her? beg the pardon of the Sena>
tor from Kentucky for repeating his name
in this connection. The gallant Senator
from Kentucky an Abolitionst free-soil
err. A man whose fame is as wide as civi~
lization, whose patriotism, whose loyalty to
the Constitution was never questioned by
men of any party Applause in the gall
leries. Oh, with what devotion could l
thank God if every man in America was
just such an Abolitionist as Henry Clay and
John j. Crittenden! Renewed applause.
The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Foot) Or
der
Mr.. Douglas. l wish to God, that the
whole American people were just such ABB
olitionists as Clay and Crittenden. APP
plause in the galleries.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair is
obliged to say that repetition Of the Of
tense from the galleries must be followed by
an order for the clearance of the galleries
forthwith. The Chair gives this notice to
all persons occupying seats in the galleries
on the assumed authority and direction of
the Senate ITSELF
Mr. Douglas: l do not say that Mr..
Yancey and his associates at Charleston
mean d!sunion. / have no authority for
saying any more than appears in the publ.
cation OF his matured plan. Sir, it was said
with truth that the order of battle issued at
Cerro Gordo by General Scott day before
the battle, was a complete history of the
triumph after the battle was over, so perfect
were his arrangements, so exact was the
compliance with his orders. The pro,
gramme of Mr.. Yancey, published two years
ago, is truthful history of the secession
movement at Charleston. | have not the
slightest idea that all those who came under
his influence in maturing his measures, con-
CURED in the ends to which these measures
inevitably led; but what were Mr.. Yancey's
measures? He proposed to insist upon a
platform identical in every feature with the
caucus resolutions which we are now asked
to adopt. The Yancey platform at Charles
ton, known as the majority report from the
committee on resolutions, in substance and
spirit and legal effect, was the same as the
Senate caucus resolutions; the same as the
resolutions now under discussion, and upon
which the Senate is called upon to vote.
do not suppose that any gentleman adj
vocating this platform in the Senate, means
or desires disunion. acqut each and every
man of such purpose; but believe, in my
conscience, that such platform of princi-
pies, insisted upon, will lead directly and in
evitably to dissolution of the Union. This
platform demands congressional Intervention
for slavery in the Territories in certain
events. What are these events? In the
event that the people Of Territory do not
want slavery, and will not provide by law
for its introduction and protection, and that
fact shall be ascertained judicially, then
Congress is to pledge itself to pass laws to
force the Territories to have it. Is this the
non intervention to which the Democratic
party pledged itself at Baltimore and Gin
cinnati? So long as the people of Terri
tory want slavery, and say so in their legis-
lation, the advocates of the caucus platform
are willing to let them have it, and to act
upon the principle that Congress shall not
interfere. They are for non-interference so
long as the people want slavery, so long as
they will provide by law tor its introduce
tion and projections; but the moment the
people say they do not want it, and will not
have it, then Congress must intervene and
force the Institution on an unwilling people.
On the other hand, the Republican party is
also for non-intervention in certain contin-
gencies. The Republicans are for non-in.
PREVENTION just so long as the people Of the
Territories do not want slavery, and say so
by their laws So long as the people Of a
Territory prohibit slavery, the Abolitionists
are for non-intervention, and will not inter-
fere at all; but whenever the people of the
Territories say by their legislation that they
do want it, and provide by law for its intro.
ductiOn and protection, then the Republi.
cans are for intervening and for depriving
them of it. Each of you is for Intervention
for your own section, and against it when
non Intervention operates for your section
There is no difference in principle between
Intervention north and intervention south
Each asserts the power and duty of the Fed
eral Government to force institutions upon
an unwilling people. Each denies the right
OF self government to the people of the Ter
ritory over their internal and domestic con.
Germs. Each appeals to the passions, pre-.
JUDGES, and ambition of his own section
against the peace and harmony of the whole
country.
Sir, let this doctrine of Intervention North
and Intervention South become the ralIyne
point of two great parties, and you will fine
that you have two sectional parties, divided
by that line that separates the free from thu
slaveholding States. Whenever this shall
become the doctrine of the two parties, you
will find southern Intervention party fol
slavery, and northern Intervention party
against slavery; and then will come the sir
repressible conflict" of which we have heart
so much. We have had an illustration o
what kind of intervention you will get when
ever you recognize the right of Congress t
intervene on this subject. The House o
Representatives sent US bill, the other day
repeating the slave code which was unani
mously adopted by the Legislature Of New
Mexico, and fastening the Wimot provist
unon that Territory against the will of tina