Newbern weekly progress., 1860-10-09

achieved in Congress a series Of victories upon
this very issue. But for these ''pulls, strong
pulls, and pulls altogether" the Wlmot provi-
so would have been on our statute book to-day
if indeed our Union could have said to-day ~
In 1852, the Democratic National Conven-
ton again assembled at Baltimore. 1t will be
remembered, that previous to its assembling
the Claims qualifications, and opinions of the
most eminent statesmen in the Democratic par
ty had been fully canvassed and compared
Prominent among them was the youthful and
gallant Douglas. Preferred by host of devo-
ted friends and admirers for the first position
in the gift of the American people, he stood be-
fore that national assembly in proud rivalry
with James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, Daniel S.
Dickinson, William L. Marcy, George NJ Dal-
las, John Y. Mason, Franklin Pierce, and he
the peer of each and all of them! Then, as
hitherto and now, the slavery question was
the all-absorbing topic Like Aaron's rod, all
others were swallowed up in this momentous
issue
The Abolition party had assumed most for
midable proportions, and clung with more than
mothers love to its favorte principle of inter
vention by Congress with slavery in the Terri
tories. Representing almost every section of
the Union, and differing upon some of the pub
lie measures of the day. they vet stood united
as one man, in infleNible opposition to Congress
tional intervention! After much excitement
and many trials of strength, Franklin Pierce
became the nominee of the convention In the
platform Of principles adopted by that conven-
ton, non-intervention by Congress with slave
ry i'll the Territories was the most distinguish
ing feature, and the nominations went before
the people, with the whole party still committed
resolutely to it.; while intervention by Congress
with slavery was the war cry Of the Abolition
lists
In that monstrous initial error of General
Pierce's Administration, which produced the
severance OF the Democratic party in New
lOrk, and gave that State over to the enemy,
no word of complaint was whispered against the
cardinal principle of nOn-ntervention 1t was
deemed too sacred ground to invade. During
this Administration began the Kansas Terri
torrial contest. Surely, in the discussion Of no
public question since the formation OF our gov
crnlncnt was there such excitement within and
without the national Congress, and never was
any subject SO fully evisceratcd in all its bear
ings as the powers of Congress- under the Con
stitution to intervene with slavery in the Ter
ritories, And yet the non-intelvention princi-
pie was not sought to be abrogated, or i'll the
slightest degree modified.
In 1896 the Democratic National Convcr-
ton assembled i'll Cincinnati again and adopted
4 platform with non-intelvention as its leading
characteristic. Mr.. Buchanan was chosen our
standard-bearer, accepted the nomination and
platform, and was known to be peculiarly the
friend of non-intcrvention. The history of that
terrible campaign is known to all. The princi-
Piles upon which it was conducted by the
Democratic party on the one side, and the arch
enemy on the other are wildly remembered.
The fate of our country trembled in the ba-
lance; the experiment of free government
seemed sbout to besummariy decided it hung
like the sword of Damocles, by the slcnderest
thread; the bravest patriots i'll the land held
their breath for time the patriotic reveille
was sounded and thousands of noble Wings
answered to its music; the victory was Sc
cured, and the glorious Union saved
What induced the Wings to lay aside their
party allegiance and come to us but the issue,
the sole issue of non-intcrvcnton And shall
it be said OF Il great party, that this accrctive
strength has been obtained under false prctcn-
ceS? |, for one, will not lend my aid, humble
as it is to such an injustice
1t is neither honest nor fair; and as certain as
the sun sheds his beams upon our beloved coun-
try the potential voice of the PEOPLE, no long
er stife,l 10y politicians, will swell in tones Of
thunder in indignant regulations OF such
outrage. Why did not some of these valiant
advocates of ''intcrvention then show their
hands? There was but one, far as | could
learn, who ever attempted it, and he most faint
ly. 1t was said that the Hon. Jacob Thomp-
son, Of Mississippi, did endcavor, in the Com
mittce on Resolutions, to have intervention"
for the protection of slavery in the Territories
in them; but it was voted down, and
never was referred to in convention. But who
so reckless during the pendency of that can
vass, to assail, in the North, the doctrine of
Who so bold or destructive,
at that anxious period, as to advocate in the
South, even, the doctrine of Congressional in
tcrvcnton or slavc-codc ?" Why, the
Northern Statcs-particula Pennsy ylvania,
which, in the latter part of the campaign, be-
came the Flanders of the tight-were filled with
political emissarics from the South,
among them the Hon. Howell Cobb, stoutly
and defending the doctrine of Con-
non-intervention with slavery in the
Territories Is this denied How many North
ern States could we have carried with non-in
tcrvention stricken from our banners? Whence
then, this sudden desire to obliterate the long
standing principle of non-intervention
Why this new born zeal for intervention by
Congress with slavery in the Territories? am
afraid there's cat in the meal tub and it Will
be found to be mighty active little cat, who is
too smart to fall any other way than on his feet. |
Our 'bolting'' friends here, l shrewdly suspect,
this trap to kill the Little Giant.
but they have discovered before this that it can't
be done. 1t is like John Bates lease, waggish
friend of mine, whom, meeting one day after the
usual salutations, l enquired where he had
been John, who stammeTed good DEAL re- |
pied: II nave Deen down TO ren-fenrenC piece |
of land to o-old Pulse" Well, who drew up, |
the lease John ~ "Why. II dr-drew it up, of
course !; 1 can dr-dr-draw good a lease any !
lawyer; it is a da-da-damed tight lease, tell you
it's got the 'Sa-sa-sad Pulse in it all the time,
and not the said Bates in it oncs.' And so this |
bond seems one-sided and framed to affect only
the ''said Douglas"
In I94S, Mr.. Van Buren, was ostracised and |
placed under she ban of the Democratic party,
for the opinion that Congress had the power, un-
der the Constitution, to intervene to prohibit sa
very in the Territories. If Congress has this |
power, it certainly has the corolary power to in
ervene for the protection orintroduction of slave
ry in the Territories. But then much
stronger in Congress than now, why was
not the issue made Where were these camor- |
ing ''interventionists'' then? The Abolitionists
were in favor of intervention to a man, and with
the union of these extremists in the South, the !
principle would have been carried beyond doubt |
Why was this 1t was because the whole Dem
ocratic party believed it to be a most dangerous
power, which, in some evil moment, when the en- |
emies of State-rights and the Constitution had |
the preponderance in Congress, might be employ
ed forinfinite mschief,even to the ACKNOWLEDGMENT
of the Union! The moment the States surrender !
the power to Congress to interfere with the qnes-
ton of slavery in the Territories, it will be fatal