The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-01-31
SPEECH OF MIR CLINGMAN.

that the democratic party not responsible for the
present agitation. We make the following extracts
from the speech:
| Mr. Clingman said: Mr. President, it is my pur-
pose to speak to-day of the condition of the country
as connected with agitation of the slavery question
shall do this with perfect frankneSs, and with
reserve, except what parliamentary rules and Sen
atorial courtesies impose BY such course only
can the real nature of the impending evil be as
certained, and remedy suggested. Having care
fully studied the subject during the greater part
of my political life and from different points of
view, intend to express my opinions seriously,
and as fully as the occasion seems to require.
Before speaking directly to the merits of the
subject [ shall devote few minutes to prem-
mary question. 1t has been contended that the
Democratic party is responsible for the antislavery
agitation of the North. retrospect into the past
will vndcate it most triumphantly from the charge
The course of the old Federal party, in the war
of 1872 had brought it into discredit and disgrace
with the American people. It's leaders, with a
view of recovering the popular favor, and through
it the control of the Government, seized upon the
occasion of the application of Missouri for admis
sion into the Union, and by appealing to the anti
slavery feeling of the northern States, created a
sectional party powerful enough to prevent, for a
time, the admission of the State. During the
struggle, a provision was adopted that slavery
|
and north of the line of latitude SO 30.
Though this arrangement was distasteful to the
South, and by many regarded dishonorable and
unconstitutional, it was acquesced In for the sake
of peace. And when, in 1915, Texas was annex
ed to the Union, by the Democratic party mainly,
| this Missouri line was extended through it, and
slavery, which legally existed in every part of that
State, was abolished and prohibited north Of the
line.
roH from,
Mexico, the Democratic party, with but few ex-
ceptions, attempted to apply the same principles
to it, and extend the line of go 3O> through it.
The proposition was again and again brought for
ward by the distinguished Senator from Illinois
Mr. Douglas and others, and often rejected
by the combined vote of the entire Wing party of
the North, and portion of the Democrats of that
section. Afte~ years of fruitess struggle it was
abandoned, and the principle Of congressional nom
intervention adopted by the compromise measures
of 1850.
In other words, it was then established, in sub
stance and effect, that the people Of the Territories
free from all congressional legislation the sub
Sect of slavery, should regulate it for themselves,
subject only to the limitations Of the Constitution
of the United States, interpreted by the courts
of the country. This settlement like the PROPOSE
ton for the extension of the Missouri line, was
resisted by the great body of the northern Wings,
who for the Wilmot proviso and against the
extension OF slavery In any mode. 1t was also OPP
posed by the southern friends Of the Missouri line
who preferred that system to congressional non
! intervention and who still cherished the hope that
it might be adopted. In the final struggle, they
were reduced to dozen southern Senators and
thirty Representatives, of whom one.
| call the attention of Senators to a striking fact
in this connection. 1t is charged not only by the
northern Opposition, but also by the southern OPP
ponents of the Democratic party, that it is respon
siLle for the alleged evils Of congressional nonn-
tervenon ard the disturbances of so-called "squat
ter sorereignty in the Territories. | affirm that,
in 1850, when this system adopted, it was
sustained by the representatives of the southern
Wings with the greatest unanimity [ was no ex-
ception to this remark for had annouced already
my separation from the organization of the Wing
party. l repeat that the southern Opposition of
that day, under the lead of Mr. Clay, were the first
portion of their fellow-ctiZens to abandon the
Missouri line and support the principle of nom
Intervention by Congress- On the <other hand,
the last and frmest friends of the Missouri line
were those represented at the Nashville conven-
tion-whose uHtmdtune it was-and such Sena-
tors and Representatives from the South as were
in that day denounced as uhras and freedters, be-
cause of their not adopting the principle of con-
eressonal non-intervention in lieu of the Missouri
line When these facts remembered, will
the present southern Opposition and it's organs
continue to assail the Democratic party for an
act which they themselves earnestly and untedly
concurred in? Can they take the ground that
it right to abolish the Missouri line, in
order that free States should be made south of it,
but that it should not, In like manner be obliterat-
ed to place the South on equal footing north of
it. After majority both of the South and of the
Democratic party had adopted the principle of
congressional non-interventon, we who had oppos-
ed it acquesced, and the Democratic and Wing
conventions of 1852 both sanctioned it.
When the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska
were admitted, the Democratic party applied the
same principle to them; and, in so doing found it
necessary to repeal the old Missouri restriction in
gress to control in any way the inhabitants of those
Territories. Were they not committed to do this
in the strongest and most emphatic TERMS by their
platform and their late action as to the Mexican
territories, while the Wing or Opposition ccnvcr-
ton had professed, in its platform, to have acqui.
esced in the principles? But it is said that
both parties had declared themselves opposed to a
further agitation of the slavery question. So they
had; but there was specific pleye in favor Of con-
gressional non-nterventon in the Territories; and
the carrying it out ought to have produced nc
state of public opinion in the North. The Dem
ocratic party could not honoraby avoid doing what
it did; and would have been liable to the charge
had it failed to do this, Of shifting its principles
from time to time, and shaping its course RS to
favor nonintervention when it would thereby
admit free States into the Union, and of going f1t