Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-27
LErTnn no HON. Gro. ". soNEs,
I'm Review of mss recent Address 20 his
Friends and Former Constituents.

he part Of Congress in establishing CIR 4,rohibiig
slavery but leaving the Territory open to the people
Of all the States to engrate thereto with their pro-
perty, providing Courts and Judges and Territorial
and extending the Federal Constitution
and all Federal laws not locally inapplicable over
IT, as the means of protection ia those who should go
there in their Constitutional rights to life, liberty
and PROPERTY and expressly repeating the old Mis-
souri, Compromise restriction which prohibited slave
~ declaring that it was the trne intent sand mean
ing of this act not to legslate slavery into any Ter
ritOry State, nor TO exclude it therefrem, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free 10 form and
regulaet their domectic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the Constellation of the United
States
You well know, and WILL am sure. have the can
dor to admit, that among the supporters of the Ne
braska-Kansas bill, differences of opinion existed
as to t0hsn and ho1 the people of Territory could
prohibit Slavery. Some believed with Mr.. DOUGLAS,
that Territorial Legislature could do SO. Others
contended that the Territorial Legislature would
have no such power. That Congress having no
such power, could not delegate that which it had
not to its creature, Territorial Legislature. That
the Territories were the common property of all
the States held in trust for them by their agent the
Federal Government, and that the citizens of all the
States had right to emigrate thereto with their
property, whether negroes or spinning jennies,)
and that the only powers OF Territorial Govern
nent were not to establish or distroy rights but to
protect all who should go there, in whatever rights
they possessed, and that it was only when they
should be authorized to organize a State Govern
ment and should assemble to form Constitution,
that they would have the power to prohib
it property in Slaves. This difference however,
not regarded practical for the time, for the
reason that it was question for Judicial constrnc-
ton while all could agree in giving to the Terrific
reS government and the exercise OF all rights there
under consistent 10Th the constitution leaving what those
rights were to be determined by the Courts as the
disputed points should arise. This fact was well UNI
derstood, admitted and explained on all hands dur
ing the tendency of the Nebraska-kansas bill. Mr.
Douglas states it in clear and concise terms two
years after in the debate in the Senate, July, 1856
He then said
"My opinion with regard to the question (as to
whether Territorial Legislature could prohibit
slavery) which my colleague is trying to raise here,
has been well known to the Senate for years. He
tried the other day, as those associated with him
used TO do two years ago and last year. to ascertain
what were my opinions on this point III the NeDras-
ka bill 1 told him 1t lcGs judicial question.
My answer then was and now is, that
If the Constitution carries slavery there, let 1t
AND no POWER ON EARTH CAN TAKE 1T AWAY but if
the Constitution does not cary it there, no power
but the people carry it there whatever may
be the true decision of the Constitutional point
would not have affected ny vote for or against the
Nebraska bill I should have supported it Just as
readily if thought the decision would be one way as
the other. He will also find that stated would
not discuss the legal question, for by the bill
ferred to the Courts"
From this statement of the condition of the Ques-
ton it will be how myself and others could vote
for you. notwithstanding differences of opinion
as to how the Courts would decide this question
when brought before them. And we little supposed
that you would understand us as concurring with
you upon this deferred question, merelybecause we
continued TO give you our confidence and support.
In 1913 Mr.. Buchanan wrote his Sanford letter,
pudIating the doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty, ,
called by you Popular Sovereignty" In the face
oft haiti
for the Presidency in 1856 and yet with what justice
could assert from that fact that you were en-
dorsing his opinions upon this then unsettled ques-
tom
The same kind of popular sovereignty and
'non-lnterventlon" that was laid down in the Clay
ton Compromise of 48 in the Territorial bills for
New Mexico and Utah in 80 and in the act organ
izing governments for Nebraska and Kansas in '54,
was asserted in our platform at Cincinnati and re-
asserted again by the Baltimore Convention that
nominated Breckenridge and Lane, with dis
tnct reputation of the construction that had been
placed upon it by Mr.. Douglas, and an equally clear
aftrmance of the decision of the Supreme Court.
Now what has brought about this change? Why
is it that you and me, equally hOnest-for know
you too well to question your sncerity-eannOt act
together in the future we have done in the past?
In my opinion there is no valid reason. For once
in your life fear you have permitted Obsti-
macy of opinion and mistaken notion OF cOnsisten-
cy to carry you too far One false step always leads
tunate adventurer most frequently finds himself in
the wilderness and quagmires of inextricable alb
surdities. There is resOn why you and me should
not continue side by side in the good fight for that
Democracy which we both believe is the essential
support of Republican institutions; for after all
that you have said the only real difference between
us this Territorial question is: has Suprem Court
decided this question against you and against Gen.
Cass, Daniel S. Dickinson and Others who con-
CURED in your construction? think it has.
Gen. Csss and Mr. Dickinson admit that it has,
and yield obedience to that decision and are
earnestly supporting iBreekinridge and Lane. You
think the Court has not decided the question !;
but know you too well to suppose for a moment
that you will not readily acquesce in that decision
whenever you are satisfied that it has been made
let that decision be ,ohdt mag. Knowing you to be
honest in these convictions. then and that they
not encouraged by any feeling unfriendy to slavery
or tc the rights of your own section l would not
question your Democracy OF your right to pubic
confidence for this difference to what has been
decided. You well know that the great body of the
Democracy of Tennessee are IN hand to hand strug
gle with their old enemy, the Federal Opposition,
whom you have characterised to me "guer
lila party" encouraging the Black Republicans.
You further know that Mr.. Douglas is not in fact
party to the Presidential race in Tennessee, and
that the only possible effect which your support of
him can have will be to increase the chances of
giving the State to Mr. Bell But you say in your let
ter that you must do this in order to adhere to the
principle of popular sovereignty" the right of
Territorial Legislature to prohibit slavery In this
you are not consistent, in my judgment, from the
fact that not month before the meeting of the
Charleston Convention you stood side by side with
me declaring as your preference, If we went North
for a candidate, for Joseph Lane OF Oregon. whom
you said from personal observation you knew to be
honest and competent And yet Joseph Lane, who
but few months ago, you preferred for President
over any other Northern man, stood then as now OPP
posed to your construction of popular sovereign
ty" having declared in the House, of which you and
he were members, in speech delivered March q,
1858, that
Congress cannot interfere with the subject of
slavery: and the people living under Territorial
government cannot do, under an organic law framed
by Congress- that which Congress itself could not dc.
1t Slavery does nominally exist, and must always
exist in the Territories, until they come to form their
State governments and then it is their right to regu-
late the matter they please. | appeal to gentle
men, then Northern men and Southern men, to main
tain and PROTECT the rights guaranteed by the Con-
SttutiOn.'
This speech was made in favor of the proposition
to admit Kansas under the LecOmptOn Constitution,
in opposition to the efforts of Mr.. Douglas Mr. Bell
and the Black Republicans. You were standing
with Gen. Lane on that question If a few weeks
before the meeting of the Charleston Convention
YOU preferred Gen. Lane who had expressed such
sentiments IN the House Of which you were MEM
Der, why can you nOtsupport John c. Breckenridge
whose only Otfense is that of holding the same senti
ments-in contest in Tennessee where the only eff
feet of Withholding your vote will be to increase the
chances of Bell?
But there are other and stronger reasons why
you should reconsider your declared purpose. What
respect you have for the professions of Stephen
a. Douglas or of his support of your favorite doc
trine of "non-intervention ?; Who knows better
than you do that he was the first to lead the Black
Republican cohorts in an unholy crusade upon that
doctrine, trampling under foot the Lecompton Con-
sttution arrogatng to himself the right a Sena-
tor to go behind the regular proceedings and say
what was and what not the will of the people of
to have Constitution framed
to his wishes and aiding in defeating the
admission of Kansas into the Union, at a time when
you. by your vote, given under oath, said she was
entitled to admission.
l remember well the incidents of that day of
treachery. CHANGED to be in Washington. Great
alarm and anxiety manifested on the part of
Democratic members of Congress-in fact, on the |
part of all national menon account of the threat
ened division in our ranks, which Mr.. Douglas was
about to occasion this question: arising from his
bitter personal dislike to the President feeling
of depression weighed heavily upon the hearts of |
ali Of you. In conformity with the usages of our |
party, caucus meeting was called to devise some
means for preserving the harmony and unity of the
party. Through the kindness of one of the Tennes-
see members, was secured admission as a specta-