Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-05-08
The Trouble at Carleston.


This is said to be world of troubles, and our
Democratic friends have had their full share OF
them at Charleston. After career OF unpar-
alleled success, the agitation of the slavery ques-
ton. which, some how or other, has operated to
their advantage heretofore, has at last DIVIDED
the party, with little prospect at present OF
q future re union. We are not disposed to make
light of the occurrence. The disruption OF a
great party, which has boosted of its unity and
nationality, upon sectional issue, is an event OF
vast Importance, and its efecte, far as relates
to the perpetuity of the Union, cannot now be
predicted.
The Committee on the platform reported to
the Convention certain resolutions, as explana-
tory of the Cincinnati platform The tlrst reso-
luton denies shat Congress has any power TO
abolish slavery in the Territories-or that
Territorial Legislature has any power to abolish
it-or to forbid the introduction of slaves within
a Territory, or the right to destroy or impair
the right OF property in slaves by any legislation
whatever" This much negatively, to which is
added the third resolution, which asserts that lit
is the duty of the Federal Government to protect
when necessary the rights of persons and prop
erty on the high seas, an the Territories, or
wherever else It's constitutional authority ex-
tends" A majority of the Convention rejected
these resolutions, and thereupon number OF
Southern delegates retired. The Convention
then re-affirmed the Cincinnati platform, with
out addition or explanation on the subject OF
slavery, bat subsequently, adopted the tennessee
resolution, endorsing the bred Scott decision as
sthe correct Interpretation of the Constitution.
In opposition to the theory contended for by
the Southern seceders is the doctrine of Senator
Douglas and his Northern friends. This affirms
the right of the Territorial Legislature to settle
the question of slavery within the bounds of the
Territory, and denies that Congress has the pow
er to interfere either for or against the lGstltu-
ton.
That diversity of sentiment on the subject
ofslayery existed between the Northern and
Southern members of the Democratic and al
other parties, has been apparent for a long time
and the failure Of the attempt at Charleston con
clusvely proves the inlpossiblity of embracing
these different opinions in one platform which
shall admit of but one Interpretation. Even the
Seceders at Charleston are not agreed among
themselves. Gov Winston, of Alabama, pro
tested against the resolutions adopted by thei
Convention, because they do not contain a de
mand for slave code for the Territories; ant
Senator Bayard, of Delaware, actually secede'
from the Seceders.
With such an irreconclable difference of opin
ion, the question arises whether there is no wa
of getting rid of the difficulty, or whether tn
peace of the country and the Union itself mus
be sacrificed to abstract theories. The only wa
we know of is to agree to disagree upon ques
tions of really no practical Importance. If le
alone, the question of slavery in the Territorie
will settle itself to the satisfaction of all reason
able and patriotic men in both sections of til
Republic.