Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-09-07


ability which a generous public had
accorded TO young man before he had been
placed in any position TO put his qualities to
esevere test and while his political career
had been remarkable only for its sunniuess.
It is regarded as bad policy for a candidate
or party TO be placed on the defensive, yet
this is chiefly defense against the charge Of
disunion sentiments. OF the rest Of the
speech, the greater part is vindication of
himself from the charge of advocating pop
ular sovereignty in 1856. Certainly these
are not enthusing themes for so enthusiastic
an audience as that which greeted Mr.. Breck-
fnridRe ..h.l ....
The charges which he fought were merely
Democratic chickens, returning home to
roost. Mr.. Breckinridge knows that after
his election as Senator he made speech to
the Kentucky Legislature, in which he spoke
of disunion as the proper resort in case Con-
gressional protection was refused to slave
property in the Territories. This was dis
union, on the merest abstraction; for, sup
pose protection TO be necessary, what chance
is there of getting it from a Congress of
majority, and probably will have a Republi-
can majoritya
Technically, therefore, the charge of dis
union is true. Really, Mr.. Breckinridge
knows it is nothing but ruse to frighten the
North. Now it is turned against him, and
the party at the North, which urged the
South TO threaten disunion, SO as to operate
on the timid conservatives of the North, are
charging it upon him and his party, and he
arraigns himself before the people, and, for
hours in a public speech, defends himself
against his own tactics.
The charge of disunion is not worthy the
notice Of a candidate for the Presidency
Firstly because it is insincere; and next be-
cause q candidate is supposed to stand on
certain principles. If these lead to disunion,
let him stand by disunion The Union is
subject TO truth; not truth to the Union. If
they do not lead to disunion, then the Union
Is not in the question, and should be left to
take care Of itself. At this time there is q
question which the Douglas party use for
catch, which it might be good policy for Mr..
BreckiBridge to notice; that is, whether Sc
resort in case of Lincoln's election. Inas-
much as Mr.. Breckenridge has once talked of
secession as the resort of the South, it was
proper that he should respond to this, and it
was not at all important whether he was
governed by his antecedents or not.
Nothing more forcibly illustrates the
debasing effect Of politics than to see men la
- ,ln =.
right, but that tits the same as the party holds,
or held at some former period. So if the
party started wrong, or ever erred, it must
perpetuate error. Southern politicians are
to be commended in that they are less given
to this professed slavish seryility to party
than those of the North; and some of them,
such as Davis and Toombs, openly scorn it, a
thing never known ofa Northern Democrat.
But one of Mr.. Breckinridge's great labors
was to show that his position is what he and
the party held in 1856, and what the Whig
fathers held in 1885, for the Democratic
bantling owns itself foundling previous to
1856 and is willing to have been left on the
doorstep ofany of the leading Wings, to get
q nominal paternity.
ereignty, meaning the right of Territorial
Legislature to admit or exclude slavery,
was the only Democratic doctrine preached
In the North, in 1856. The published re-
ports of his speeches in the North showed
that he preached this dogma to its fullest
extent, and however he may claim to have
been misrepresented, or what mental re-
servations about the Supreme Court he may
have had, or how he may have suppressed
the truth or suggested falsehood, the fact
can not be disposed OF, that squatter SOW
ereignty, pure and simple, was what the
North understood from his speeches, and
was the only doctrine that could be advo-
Gated in the free States without destroying
the Democratic party. Southern men pre-
tend now that the Nebraska Bill never
meant sqnatter sovereignty; but they know
that it was construed to mean that, in the
North. They know that they consented to
the trick, and ticlxled the ear with the
promise that 'the true intent and meaning
Of the bill was to permit the people of the
Territory TO regulate their institutions in
their own way when they did not intend
tHohA W w my IL
was political swindle, which the South con.
ssnted to, and the proceeds of which they
shared.
This fact should tingle their cheeks witt
shame, and instead of now trying to cover
up the trick by more trickery of words, they
had better denounee the whole swindle anC
start with new score.
But the South are laying up another di
lemma Of the same kind which they will
have TO dodge out of in the same way
They knew that popular sovereignty re
dUeed to practice, would be nothing but OF
ganiEed civil war. Rights of property le
galIy acquired, can not be legislsted out O
existence without exciting forcible resist
ance. II justifes forcible resistance. How
much worse, when this property has acquires
rights in Territory under the Constitution
and has become large Investment, and TIA
dependence Of a portion of the people, t
attempt TO drive il out by the politi
cal change from Territory to State
The thing is impossible. Every sensible
man knows that such an outrage could no
be committed; and the South who have, a
they imagine lodged out Of squatter-soyer