The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25


Of Va, on this point, fully sustaining him,
and also resolutions passed by the Legisla-
ture Of Georgia, in 1854, approving the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, on the ground that it
carries out the doctrine of non-interventi0n
in removing the dis cussion of the slavery
question from Congress. He says
1t is undepiable that Georgia understood
the Kansas. N ebraska bill as l understand
it. She understood the compromise mea-
sures of 1850 as understand them. These
Georgia resolutions are as good platform
as want. I am willing to take the pream-
BILE and resolutions adopted by the State of
Georgia in 1854, without the dotting an l.,
or the crossing of a t. and declare them to
be the Democratic platform. hear men
behind me say they are not. am. I will
take the Georgia platform with its own in.
depreciation, not mine. l could not use
language to express my own opinions more
clearly and unequivocally than find them
standing on the statute book of Georgia at
this day as instructions to her Senators.
The country then understood this mea-
sure as now explain it; and will show
you that the House of Representatives as
well as the Senate, understood it in the same
way. 1t will be recollected that Colonel
Richardson, of Illinois, was chairman of the
Committee on Territories, and, as such, re-
ported the Kansas. Nebraska bill in the
House of Representatives. He explained it
then as do now. The reputation that he
made during that session in the passage OF this
great measure, so commended him to south
ern Democrats, that when the next Congress
assembled they presented his name as the
Democratic candidate for Speaker, against
the Republican candidate, Mr.. Banks, of
Massachusetts. Pending that election for
Speaker, the southern Opposition members
charged Mr.. Richardson with not being
sound on the slavery question, because he
held to this odious doctrine of noninterven-
ton, or squatter sovereignty, as polite gentle
men are in habit of terming it. General
Zollicoffer propounded questions for the
candidates for Speaker to answer. These
questions were read from the Clerks table,
and Mr.. Richardson, as well as the other
candidates, proceeded to answer.
MIR. DOUGLAS quotes RICHARDSON'S reply
to ZoLLocoFF's questions, in which the for.
mer stated that be believed the people Of
territory "had the right either to establish
or prohibit African slavery" and shows
that every southern Democrat in Congress,
voted for Mr.. RICHARDSON for Speaker, af.
ter be had enunciated these principles. At
ter quoting the vote, Mr.. DOUGLAS says:
Who ever expected that in less than five
years from that day, you would find these
same gentlemen making a test against
man because he held the identical senti.
ments which were then affirmed? I reckon
am about as sound on that subject as Gov.
Richardson. He and agree precisely in
our construction OF the act. He was chair
man OF the territorial committee in one
House 1apd I in the other, and less than five
years you affirmed, either that you ap-
proved Of Richardson's construction, or that
bis entertaining those views constituted no
objection to him. Who has changed since
that time? Is it I, who now avow the
principles did then or those who now de-
nounce me for holding the same opinions
which they then seemed to sanction by their
votes? l make no tests with gentlemen. If
they have honestly changed their opinions
since that time, they should frankly avow
the change. No man should cherish such a
pride for consistency as to cling to error
one moment after he is convinced of it; but
man, when be changes his opinions, ought
to avow it, and give the reasons for the
change, so as to remove the scales from your
eyes also. If can forgive all these honora.
BILE gentlemen for having changed their po-
sition, is it asking too much of them to for
give me for my fidelity to principles OF &C
ton to which they and l were solemnly
committed within so short period?
THE CINCINNATI CONVENTION.
Mr.. DOUGLAS here produces the resolu-
lions passed by the Democratic State Con-
vention of Alabama, in 1856, in which the
Democracy of that State resolved
8. That the delegates to the Democratic
National Convention, to nominate a Presi.
dent and Vice President are hereby ex
pressly instructed to insist that the said
convention shall adopt platform of princi-
Piles, as the basis of a national Organiza.
ton, prior to the nomination of candidates,
unequivocally asserting, in substance, the fol-
lowing propositions l. the recognition and
by Congress upon the subject Of slavery in the
Territories. 2. That no restriction or prohibi
tiOn of slavery, in any Territory shall hereaf.
ter be made by any act of Congress. 3. That
no State shall be refused admission into the
Union because of the existence of slavery there.
in. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance
of the fugitive slave law.
10. That if said national convention shall re
fuse to adopt the propositions embraced in the
preceding resolution. our delegates to said
convention are hereby positively instructed to
withdraw therefrom.
Mr.. Douglas. There is some very sound
and wholesome doctrine contained in these
instructions. The Alabama delegates were
to demand that the platform be made first,
and that the platform should expressly affirm
the doctrine of non-intervention. The
Cincinnati Convention acceded to the de.
mands of the Alabama Democracy, indorsed
those propositions 1 am willing to abide
by them now. They are a fair exposition
OF the Kansas>Nebraska bill. They are
Identical with the Cincinnati platform. The
Charleston Convention Endorsed those iden-
teal propositions, and Alabama seeded
because the convention did SO. Alabama
went into the Cincinnati convention demand
ing non-intervention as the condition on
which she would remain. She got it. She
went into the Charleston convention de-
handing the reverse of non-intervention as