The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-07-11


ifit have any meaning, seems to utterly IT
nounce the very squatter sovereignty o
which thew made the division and recognise
the bred Scott decision and all present an
all future restrictions which the Suprem
Court have or may put upon territorial pow
er over domestic relations! They have thu
! by sort of iudirection, taken away thei
whole argument upon popular sovereignty
! in the Territories But before they did tina
they not only adhered to their Charleston re
iiuSal to explain in the platform what the
2 meant by "squatter sovereignty but the
so reconstructed their Convention by the e2
clusion of sovereign States and original DELE
: gates, that the necessity was put upon tn
seventeen retiring States which held the a:
e sured democratic electoral votes. to proclaim
S their national creed in unmista kable terms
: having but one meaning both North an
: South
7 This they have done in separate Conven
o ton They re-affirmed the Cincinnati plat
: form with three explanatory propositions an
: to those three propositions let me, som ,wha
5 in detail, call your candid attention. The.
Q read as follows:
. First That the government OF Territory
5 organized by Co gress, is provisional ant
temporary, and during its existence all cit
zanS of the United States have an equal rieh
10 settle with their property in the Territory
without lheir rights, either of person or pro
pastv, being destroyed or impaired by con,
sI-.e =ional or territorial legislation.
Second That it is the duty of the Federal
Government, in all its departments, to pra.
tect, when necessary, the rights of persons
ana prop in the Territories, and wherever
else It's constitutional authority extend9
.rhrd That when the settlers m Ter
ritory having an adequate population, form a
State constitution, the right of sovereignty
commences, and being contaminated by ad
mission into The Union, they stand on an
equal footing with the people of other States
and the State thus organized ought to be ad.
mittad int, the Union whether its constitu
ton prohibits or recognises the institution o.
slavery"
These ar, all the propositions touching the
Interpretation of the Cincinnati platform
Take them in their most comprehensive sense
and what do they affirm?
FIRsT, that all citizens have an equal right
to settle with their property in the common
territory, free from all risk that their rights o.
person or property. when they get there
shall be destroyed or impaired by either con-
gresSional or territorial legislation. Who will
gainsay this ? 1t is only our doctrine of non
/ Intervention against the rights of property
extended to the territorial legislature as well
as to Congress. Who will say that the pro-
perty of citizens settling there from other
States may be interfered with and destroyed
by territorial legislature To affirm this
territorial power is to declare that terrific
rial legislature may rob citizens of their pro-
perty without compensation. Now, shall
not the citizens who go with their property
| to settle in the territories be protected from
the robbery of a territorial legislature To
that question this proposition says yes. Who
t says nay
/ The second proposition affirms the duty OF
the General Government. in all its Depart
4-<zaShss 70 protect, when necessary, the rights
of persons and property wherever its consti-
tutional authority extends.
/ And is not that universal principle o
good government Who says that the Fed
eral Government shall not protect persons and
property wherever it has authority to do Sc
under the constitution? Does it affirm any.
thing more than that it is the duty of Gov
eminent to exercise its constitutional func-
tons in the protection of persons and proper
/ ty? And if the power which the Govern.
nent is called upon to exercise be only, as in
, this case, CONSTITUTIONAL power, who car
deny the right and justice of its exercise II
calls for no slave code, no special legislation Of
! Congress, no tariff of protection for slave Ia
/ Dor. 1t makes no discrimination whatever in
favor of slavery. If slave labor in the Terri
tories be property, then it is tc be protected
/ ike all other property-no more, no less
And what democrat denies that slave labor
IS property under the Constitution, and by
/ force of all the decisions Of the Supreme Court
touching that property
| The republicans deny it and therein lies
the first fundamental difference between the
higher law of the republicans and the consti-
tutional law of the democracy and how can
3 democrat refuse to affirm that distinctive
principle which divides the country upon this
issue
The third proposition is the same in sub
stance as the resolution | have quoted from
the Cincinnati platform. 1t makes popular
| sovereignty begin with the act of making a
constitution. 1t sets up popular sovereignty
against vague imaginary power in a terri
torial legislature to destroy property witho"
compensation and it affirms the only rult oil
self government which, under our constitu-
tons and laws, can apply to communities OF
States
AMI tell me, now, if yon can, where does
popular sovereignty" exist under our Amer
lean Institutions bit in the people of the
States Where is there such a monstrous
political creation to be found as territorial
legislature with an imaginary inherent power
ontside of the institutions Of the States, out.
side Of the organizations of the Federal Gov
eminent, and subsisting upon itself high
er law in territorial legislature to confiscate
property than exists in Congress or in all the
departments Of the General Government
The very statement of this extraordinary
assumption of power proves that it cannot
exist; and is it unreasonable to demand that
such power to destroy and confiscate pro-
perry of all the citizens Of all the States, when
settling in the common territory, shall be ex-
lie t'y d:sclaimed by the democratic party in
It's platform
Is it any better, nay is it as just as the re-
= | pholcan doctrine OF absolute prohibition by
, congress Ofwhat avail is the doctrine Of
!. congressional non-interventon. if it is followed
: hy territorial prohibition ? Better congress
ional law that prevents the slave-owner poino
into territory to settle with his pronerty
than a territorial law that robs him Of HI.
! property as soon as he has incurred the r;sk
J and expense of removing there
y What, then. is the practical difference he
tween the two doctrines The republican,
insist upon congressional prohibition. Tn,
HsqIatter sovereignty sets up territorial pro
) hilton. One puts the Wilmot proyiso i,
Congress, and the other puts it in the terrific
I rial legislature. There is the whole of tn
argument.
;, Now let democrats of the North be homes
and square with the South on this point. TIL
North. by spinning cotton, has immensely en-
? HANGED the value Of slave labor to the Sontf
They want to know what their rights wit
y that labor are to be if they 60 with it into til
: Territories adapted to it. We cannot den
!, equal rights to all citizens TO settle with the
u property in the common territory. We mus
. = repudiate principle, and repudiate the deci,
n ions of the Supreme Court, to deny it. Neitf
er can we deny that slave labor is propert,
~ md if property it must have equal rights
protection with al property. And Wha
/ then, will you do with it in the Tersiteri,
/ before they assume State sovereignty ? Yo
2 must either give it protection ike all 9TH
= property, or you must assume the power
d destrogit Having driven the Wilmot PROV.
% out of Congress, shall we set it up against Il
Z South 10 the Territories
~ The democratic doctrine which all ha,
Z agreed to is .non-intervention.n That Is
! ! Fundamental principle in the democratic eret
, which Is to be maintained as firmly now /
!, before the bred Scott decision. Nay, Il
! court afiirms. and does not deny that primo
4 pie. s'noa-interJersuce NTH slavay By Co
: gfess in State or Territory and IN the Dissri
: Of Col,sBsbia /" That is our creed. Shall v
turait round. and put Intervention in Il
hand of reckless territorial legislature? n
!. IL we are consistent, we must extend non-i
= prevention from Congress to the territorial i
: gislature Neither shall destroy or impair Il
4 rights Of property.
!. And here, fellow-citizens, the national d
. mocracy hold two distinct positions for Il
sfs5sx