Des Arc citizen., 1860-09-26
For the Des Arc Citizen.J faI
 :" MIR. DOUGLAS GREAT SPEECH.

Mir. Douglas, in his celebrated speech of the 18th and 18th of May, 1S60 as- sumes as the basis of his subsequent ar gument the following propositions: That the Democratic party in lS4S, by its sup port of Gen. Cass, committed itself to the doctrines of popular or squatter sovereign ty; that the same doctrine of popular or squatter sovereignty was incorporated into the Compromise measures of 1850; that it was re-afirmed by the Baltimore Con- vention of 1852, and that it was in 1854 engrafted upon the Kansas-N Nebraska e- gislation of that year; that il was embo- died in the Cincinnati Platform of 1856. The view of the matter which Mir. Doug. las here presents involves such success sion of fallacies ingeniously combined, as to place any adequate review of it almost without the ordinary range of newspaper discussion. Still, Mir. Editor, if it is not trespassing too much upon your space, l propose a review, ct seriatim, of each one of his assumed facts. i ss To the support of the propositions 1 have alluded to, his elaborate argument IS al- most entirely devoted. His argument con sists in extended quotations from the re- solves of conventions and from the speech es of public men who have been identified with the discussion of this question in its various phases. An examination of it will show that it is play upon the word "non-intervention,' and that all his cases of seeming inconsistency are made out by assigning to that term meaning differ ent from what has ever been assigned to l it by politicians in the South. The cases of apparent concurrence with his views, which are quoted by him with ambi-dex- trous tact, now that those holding them differ with him as to their true intent and meaning, are but castles in the air of his own construction With this general de- scription of the line of MT. Douglas ar gument, proceed to the task have im- posed upon myself.
 The fallacy of his first postulate-hat the support of Gen. Cass, in 1S4S, committed the party 10 his view of non-intervention, is apparent to the most superficial obser- yer. Every one at ali conversant with the current history of political events for a few years past, must know that the Nicholson letter, containing Gen. Cass' views upon that subject was the subject of conrover- sy at the South. The true construction of that letter was the prominent question en- tering into the canvass in the Southern States. Democratic orators, on every oc- casion, denounced the doctrine of squatter, or. as it was at that time called, Peon sov- ereignty, and affirmed that the Nicholson
 letter did not commit Gen. Cass to it. A perusal of the Democratic journals of that period will show with what spirit Demo cratic speakers repulsed the assertion that their candidate favored the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. A suspicion that he entertained this doctrine caused Gen. Cass to loose some of the most reliable Demo- cratic States in the South, and whatever of Democratic support he received was in consequence of the constantly reiterated assertion that t only meant the Territories when they should be admitted as States.
 To show that do not misrepresent the Democratic sentiment of that period make the following extract from the series of resolutions adopted by the Democratic State Convention of Virginia, on the 29th of February, 1S4S:
 tss That we do most solemnly declare that there is no power in Congress, or a Territo- rial Legislature--which is it's creature-nor anywhere else, save only in the people of a Territory in the adoption of a State Constitu- tion preparatory to admission in the Union, to prevent the migration of any citizen of any C+n+a ,x-ith rtu hath ba cln . or anything else, to any domain which may be acquired by the common blood and treas ure of the people of all the States. | *a+ that we will, under no "poItical necessity" support for the Presi- dency or Vice Presidency, any person who shall not be the firm and avowed opponent of any plan or doctrine which in any way inter- feres with the right of the citizens of any one State to possess and enjoy all their property | in the common domain." trl,f - | On the 4th of March the venerable Thomas Ritchie, commenting on these res olutions through the columns of his paper which was, at That time, the confde,tial organ of .Mr. Polk's Administration said :: f'f1s'f Fi" @
 proclaimed. v You will find them in these resolutions. They are worthy of our attentive perusal and close study, and they will be found so purely, honestly and en- tirely Democratic that the strongest necessa- " requisite is to keep them constantly before the people," 1o ~
 In February of the same year. the Al. abama Democratic State Convention re. solued- aa nsafE ug
 ssThat it is the duty of the Federal Govern
 ment, by all proper legislation, to secure al entry into those Territories for all the citi zens of the United States, together with theil property of every description, and that thu same shall be PROTECTED by the United States, while the Territories are under it's au
 thority." afg aT aisn 4as
 i Other Southern States adopted similar
 resolutions, and if it was not trespassine
 too much upon your space, would quote
 them. Enough, however, has already
 been said to show that as early as 184s
 Southern Democrats repudiated this dog
 ma as political heresy. l Equally fallacious is his assemption tha
 the doctrine of squatter sovereignty wa
 incorporated into the Compromise legisla
 ton of 1850. Before inquirng whelhe
 squatter sovereignty is engrafted upol
 those measures, let us determine wha |, squatter sovereignty is. As enunciatel