Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1860-10-18

ri lektSldtuIV, We CuSotiuHJ Aeoopu'Io
and respect in conformity with that
decision. Slaves are recognized as
property, and placed OR an equal
footing with all other property
Hence the owner OF slaves-the
same as the owner Of any other spe-
'cies of property-has Alright to move
toa Territory and carry his property
with him"
This is substantially the interpret
tation.wbich the democratic party,
With the exception Of the squatter
sovereignty sect, has put on the
bred Scott decision. Therefore il
is that the Democratic party, with
the above exception now insist that
as The highest judicial tribunal, 10
which The question was specially re-
tferreG, has decided that "ihe owner
| OF slaves, the same as the owner Of
any other species of property, has a
right to move to Territory and
carry his property with him." as
"slaves are recognized as property"
and as non-interveniion forbids Con-
gress 10 interfere with slavery 10
the Territories, = it is absurd and un-
constitutional to pretend that a ter.
ritorial Legislature, deriving all its
power from Congress. can prevent
the owner of slaves from rtmov.
ing to Territory unless be con-
Isenis not to Garry his property with
: him, or can in any wny impair,
abridge, or destroy the rights which
the Constitution by lis authoritative
, lexpounders declare to belong to all
citizeus Of all the States.
81 Northern Democrats are not So
blind or disingenuous as not TO see
6 that the South springs no new issues
upon tia North. when she asks that
: the original guarantees of uen.inter-
t veniion, and Of her equal rights il
9 the Territories, shall be faithfully ant
: fairly observed. Northern demo
;, Gratis, if they will only examine the
: matter carefully end hOnestly,gill see
: that ''squntter sovereignty" is E:
4 fatal to the interest and rights of lbt
= South as tie Wimot proviso, or the
e Missouri restriction; and that, if i
!. be conceded that the bred Scot
s case decided that which Mr.. Dougla.
f admitted that it decided, when be
t spoke in New Orleans in 1858, the
e squatter sovereignty dogma is direc
= violation of the supreme law as laid
/ down in that decision, aud a positivt
6 breach Of the agreement by which
J. all democrats bound themselves tc
/ abide that observation-disclosures it nigh
!. be.
Il Northern democrats will then SCI
9 that their Southern brethren ask fol
y nothing but their rights, which they
: have always claimed, and which the
; North has promised againand again te
t, respect and protect from the moment
0 that the Supreme Court declared
:, those rights to be constitutional
q Northern democrats will also see
e that the assertion Of squatter soy
: ersignty is practically a denial o
S those rights, the more insulting be-
cause it is accompanied by Ga
I grant breach Of faith on the part
of certain politicians whose onl,
object in asserting it is to win loc1
popularity BY paudering to free soil.
; ism, and appearing to adhere to the
democratic doctrine Of popular soy.
ereiguty,wbile in reality they practice
sectional republicanism, and exclu.
sion Of all slave owners from the
: Federal Territories, and d Re
every purpose for the attainment
) Of which non-intervention was ad.
yocated and adopted.
The democracy as distinguished
from the squatter sovereignty men,
maintain that the doctrine of nom =
reference with slavery by Congress,
since the Supreme Court rendered
Tits Judgment in the bred Scott case,