The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-05-30
RAVENNA, WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1860.


those present ond voting, but not two. thirds
of the Electoral College, New York not vot.
ing because she had double delegation
Speeches were made in favor of making it
unanimous. Mr.. Yancey and Mr.. Winslow,
OF Alabama, pledged the people ofthat State
to support the nominee also Sydenham
Moore and others united in the pledge
There were some ancient names there who
did not think this doctrine to be such fatal
heresy as to form a sufficient cause for dis
rupting the Democratic Party at the hazard of
disunion. Gov. WinsIow pledged the people
of Alabama for Gen. Cass on this doctrine,
and carrying the Nicholson letter in his hand
as the compass by which his political action
should be governed. Sydenham Moore is
not a name unknown to fume, and he did not
think this doctrine such fatal blow to
Southern rights. Also gentlemen from
Kentucky and Tennessee pledged the sup.
port of their States. The next day the plat.
form was adopted in which this doctrine Of
non-intervention was affirmed.
Mr.. Pugh read the seventh resolution of
the platform
Mr.. Douglas resumed. In l94S the De.
mocratic Party thought interference was
unconstitutional, and would not permit it by
Abolitionists or any others. They did not
regard an Interventionist as any better than
an Aboltionist. They said that Congress
must not interfere at all, nor others. What
others Why these men who want Slave
Code. Southern Interventionists and Nor.
thern Interventionists were by that platform
put on an equality. After that Mr.. Yancey
felt il his duty to record his solemn protest
ogainst this dangerous heresy, and he came
to the Convention next day with long pro-
test, accompanied with q resolution. |
shall ask the Senate 10 listen to the whole
OF that entire report of Mr.. Yancey, for it
embraces every thought, idea, principle, and
every pretext assigned at Charleston for
Withdrawing from the Convention. may
here be permitted to remark that in what
ever may say mean no personal disre-
spect TO Mr.. Yancey. We are old personal
friends. We met as members of Congress
seventeen years ago, and our social relations
hive always been kind and uninterrupted.
} | have as much admiration as any one nan
living, for his surprising ability and high so.
cial qualities, and the boldness and nerve
: with which he avows his principles, although
| shrink with horror from the consequences
to which his would lead the Republic. Mr.
Push read the report of Mr.. Yancey, and
} resolutions] 1t will be observed in this re.
port there is the whole argument in favor o
intervention. or projections, or for any other
purpose which we have heard repeated over
and over again for so many years. doub,
} if any Senator can take his own speech, and
find any one idea in favor of that doctrine
haf iS hDh hi.,b ~, nj
I, Yancey. 1t was not denied that Gen. Cass
held this doctrine, and was nominated be
) cause he held that the people of the terrific
ries might either introduce or exclude per.
! nit or prohibit slavery at their pleasure
: and for that reason Mr.. Yancey and his CO..
leagues protested. The argument of the
equality of States is used, and also that ter.
rltorles are the common property of all, anC
that it is not credtahle to the Democratic
Party to 60 before the country and dodge
the question Of the rights oil the South in the
! Territories. He said the Convention hat
: refused to express an opinion on the ques
, ton of whether the Territorial Legislature
! could prohibit slavery or not, and it was no
, creditable to avoid expressing an opinion
1t convicted the Democratic Party OF dou
J cessary to express an opinion was that tht
! candidate held the opinion that the Terrific
, res could exclude slavery. He then con
5 cluded with resolution. This proposition
. was submitted to the Convention and reject
ed, Sc to ZIG.
! Mr.. Pugh read the vote by States: Yea
+, -Maryla land, /; South Carolina, 9; Georgia
g 9; Florida, 8; Alabama, 9; Arkansas, 8
:, Tennessee, l; Kentucky, l.
Nuys-Maine, 8; New Hampshire, 6
. Massachusetts,, IL; Vermont 6; Rhode Isl
i, and, A; Connecticut, 6; New Jersey, 7
I, New York, So; Delaware, 8; Pennsylvania
t 26; Maryland, 6; Virginia. II; North Caro-
=, Iua, IL; Mississippi, 6; Texas, 4; Tennes
. see. l2; Kentucky, IL; Ohio, %; Indiana
> IL; Illinois. 9; Michigan, 5; Iowa, 4; Mis-
t souri,, 7; Wisconsin, 4.
0 Mr. Douglas resumed Here we fin
t these Slavebolding States voting agains
e the Incorporation of the doctrine of inter
!. vention for the protection of Slavery int
y the platform. They voted against the doc
e trine Of Mr.. Yancey's report and resolutions
d These States then had an opportunity o
e affirming this doctrine, if they thought
,, ought to be any portion Of the Democrat
e creed. You will find votes against III
J. doctrine from Mississippi, Louisiana or
ls Texas, the very States that have now sece
% ed from the Charleston Convention, for tt
e reason that this same doctrine was not il
1t corporated-in le48 voting against it;
e 1860 their delegations boiling the Convel
}. ton because it was not In the Platform
The Senate and the country can Judge wi
ic has changed on this question. Now thin
D. I have shown conclusively that the Demo
q, cratic creed in l84S was non.interventic
y by Congress with slavery in the Territor
IS either for it or against it; that Congre.
II should not interfere either to establish,
n abolish, to protect, or to maintain, but u
m qualified non.intervention. The Democra
j. ic party was committed to the doctrine.
q, is true there were individual exception
'e The Senator from Mississippi was one
10 them. He supported Gen. Cass under pr
l. test, making speeches for him and protes
IN ing against his Nicholson letter and Il
r. doctrines contained in it. The Senator h.
~ clean record, but a record outside of Il
* Democratic Party, and a record at war wi
to the Democratic PlatEbrm-rebelling again
ic its principles bit aEquiescing in its view
9. The Senator then, as he does now, grant,
le no quarter to Squatter Sovereignty, but
a. made speeches Tor the Squatter SovereiG
ts chief.
l. Now pass to 1850, in order to she
le clearly that this same doctrine of non-inte
D. vention was incorporated in the compromi
at measures of that year against the will OF Il
le Senator, and on my motion. We did diff
W then as we do now-he against them al
le for them. deem it my duty to sho
Q. that this doctrine was fully discussed al
ID affirmed by vote of nearly two to one,
= the Compromise measures of 1850. N
a. Douglas referred to the bringing in of Il