The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-03
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT

inns of the old Federal party which our
fathers repudiated in 1898, 1899, and 1900,
we must deny that the Government OF the
United States can afford any protection, ex-
cept in federal capacity, to property of
any description; all other duties of protec-
tion having been wisely confded to State
or Territorial, and, in some cases, to merely
municipal authorities.
1t is true, undoubtedly, that all forms of
property recognized by the laws of the re-
spective States composing our Confedera-
ton, are entitled to equal regard by their
common Federal agent but to affirm that
it shall, under the pretence of protecting a
right of property, usurp any power not
clearly delegated by the States, in the terms
of their compact with each other, is to
affirm doctrine fraught with the most fatal
consequences. The question is not wheth-
er property in slaves, or any other form of
property, shall be protected in the States, or
in the Territories, or elsewhere the ques>
ton is, by which of the several divisions of
government with US, and to what extent by
each, this protection shall be afforded. 1t
is a controversy, therefore, involving the
whole ground of difference between the
Democratic party and the various parties
by which, in the history of our country,
the Democratic party has been opposed.
The first inclination of every Democrat
should be to resist, as far as he can lawfully,
the exercise of any power by the Federal
Government, within the States, within the
Territories, or anywhere else, until a clear
and definite delegation of such power by the
several States, can be proven by the lan>
guage or necessary import of the Constitu-
tion of the United States.
We have thus endeavOred to show you,
fellow citizens, that the conduct of the Demo-
cratic party with reference to the subject of
slavery in the Territories, has been distn-
guished tor moderation, for wise and whole
some craftsmanship, for regard to the limits
ed nature of the Federal government, to the
reserved rights of the State and the PEG.
pie, to the peace, the welfare, the continual
preservation of that Union which has made
US miracle among the nations.
CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
When our National Convention assem-
bled at the city of Charleston, on the 23d
of April, it exhibited condition of affairs
unlike that of any other political convention
OF this year. Every State in the Union
was fully represented. What American
citizen, whether of Southern or Northern
birth, from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast
from the inland seas which border upon
Canada, from the valley of the imperial Mis-
Sissippi, from the State looking out upon
the Gulf of Mexico--did not rejoice on
behoding what seemed to be in very truth a
Council of the whole Republic? Why that
council failed in its purpose wherefore ii
was distracted, by whom, and in what man.
ner, we must now proceed to relate.
The Democratic Convention of Alabama
assembled at Montgomery in January
1860, to appoint delegates from that State
to the Charleston Convention. 1t chose to
declare the opinion entertained by MAORI
ty of its members, that no Territorial Leg.
islature had any right to prohibit the insti>
tuition of slavery, and that the Congress Of
the United States was under immediate OBJ
legation to maintain and protect that insti-
tuition everywhere-"in the States, in the
Territories, and in the wilderness in which
Territorial governments are as yet unor-
gained" To such declaration of opinion
by the State Of Alabama there could be no
reasonable ground of objection upon the
part Of other States, each of them being at
| liberty to concur or to dissent
But Alabama did not pause here; she
instructed her delegates to present those
resolutions to the convention at Charleston,
and in case the opinion therein expressed
was not adopted by that convention, her
delegates were Immediately to withdraw.
And, as if conscious of the antagonistic
attitude assumed by such instructions to.
ward the Democratic party at large, the
Montgomery convention appointed com~
mittee upon whom should devolve the duty,
as soon as the Alabama delegates had with
| drawn from the convention at Charleston, of
calling State convention to decide upon
Interior measures. We desire to speak with
entire respect of the State of Alabama
and without questioning her right, at any
time, to adopt such resolutions, as to her
seemed best, we are constrained to say that
the attitude which she thus assumed, with
regard to the democracy of other States,
was violation of the usages and principles
upon which, on y, national organization
of our Democratic party can be maintained.
! If each of the States had followed he exam
ple-and each of them was the peer of Ala
bama-tbe national convention could not
have proceeded one step there would have
| been no room for counsel, for Interchange
| of opinion or sentiment, for Cancellation,
harmony and united action.
After the Charleston convention had pre-
scribed the rules of its proceeding and veri-
fed the credentials of all its delegates, in
the usual method, it appointed committee
of one from each State to report platform
of principles. That committee, after long
and tedious sessions, made three reports
one by the members IRON seventeen States,
one by the members from fifteen States, and
one by MIR. Butler from the State of Mas
sachusetts.
The first majority report was in sub
stantial accordance with the instructions OF
Alabama to her delegates; the second con-
sisted of an addition to the Cincinnati plat
form that the Democratic party would
abide whatever decisions had been, or might
hereafter be made by the Supreme Court Of
the United States; the third was the Gin
cinnati platform without any important
addition. After full and earnest debate,
it became evident that the convention was
not satisfied with any of these reports and
accordingly, motion was made and carried
to recommit all of them. Alabama, as we'll
as the rest of the States which afterwards
/ IL r. L. IL