The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-05-22
Chr 9DRstfrn DRmorrat.
CHARLOTTE, N. c.,
MIR. CLINGMAN's SPEECH.

MR.. CLINGMAN'S SPEECH.
On the 7th and 9Th inst, Mr. Clingman of n. e.,
delivered speech in the L. S. Senate on the
question of slavery in the Territories. We append
a synopsis:
Mr. Clingman expressed his dissent from the
views of Mr. Davis. He thought that the Demo
cratic party of the country was sOlemny committed
and pledged to the non-interventiOn, which had
been introduced and adopted a compromise be-
tween those who held that it the duty OF Con-
gress to pass the Wiimot provlso, and those VINO
claimed at its hands protection for slave property
in the Territories This was the theory OF the
compromise measures of 1850, and this was the
theory of the KansasN ebraska bill; which, by vlr-
tue OF the "Badger amendment, expressly guard
ed against the implication of seeking to protect
slavery by the revival of any law existing anterior to
the passage of the Missouri compromise. Nor
did it suffice to say that the decision made In the
bred Scott case was conclusive against the doctrine
of non-iuterventOn, since if it were admitted that
under that decision Congress authorized to
intervene, it by no means followed that Congress
was bound in duty or expedlency to do so when no
imperative necessity demanded it Suppose the
Supreme Court had decided that the Missouri re-
strction was constitutional, would Southern men
have admitted that the Northern Democracy were
henceforth free to insist on the WilmOt proviso
Would thew not rather have still held their allies
to the doctrine of nonintervention! But protec-
ton was not now demanded by the South The
bill of Mr. Brown protecting slave property in
Kansas could not, 50 far as he was informed, COM
1nand the vote of single Senator beyond that Of
its author. Already slavery was protected by
Territorial law in New Mexico, and even if it
prohibited in Kansas, the South had lost nothing
as compared with the Missouri compromise line,
which she was once willing to extend to the Pa
cfc Kansas was north of that line.
aIr Cling,nan, i'll the course Of his argument,
read from a speech delivered by Mr. Calhoun in
the Senate in the year 1913, and in which he ad-
vocated the policy of "nOn-action" on the part of
Congress during the Territorial condition of Ore
gon, as being the dictate Of constitutional law,
reason and Justice.
He thought the difference between the two
wings of the Northern and Southern Democracy
was not sufficiently wide to justify separation in
their political action, since If not precsely colnc
dent in their present construction of the Cincinnati
platform, it was plain that they were marching by
lines which would at length converge at the same
point. The Southern Democracy hold that the
Supreme Court has already decided against the
power of a Territorial Legislature to impair in
any way or in any degree the rights of slavery in
the Territories of the L. States. The Northern
Democracy deny this proposition, but declare when
the Supreme Court decides they will conform
their action to the ruling of that tribunal.
Mr. Clingman thought it vas politically impossi-
BILE to pass any Constitutional laws for the protec
ton OF slavery in Territory where the people
were so hostile to the institution, and even if
passed they would be imperative and void in the
presence of a local sentiment opposed to their
execution and enforcement. Moreover it was con-
eeded on all hands that the people of Territory
might prohibit slavery in proceeding to the forma-
ton Of constitution and State government-thus
placing it in their power to abolish slavery at the
very juncture when alone the South could hope for
an increment of political strength Slaveholding
Territories were valuable only the nurseries Of
slaveholdng States, but who could not predict that
Territory in which slavery ad been protected
against the will Of the inhabitants would be sue
ceeded by State rendered only the embit-
tered against the South? During the last ten
years non-intervention had been the settled policy
of the Democratic party and he opposed to
any construction which would have for its
inevitable effect to divide that party, in which the
hopes Of the Constitution and the Union were re-
posed. The Northern Democracy had heretofore
fought calamity for the rights of the South, and
if they were not potential in all the non-slave-
holding States as they once were, it only fair
to remember that their weakness sprang from the
fidelity with which they had adhered to the Con-
Ftitution in the face of fanatical opposition