Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-06-23
ths Stapaate.
LETTER OF
HON. LAWRENCE OBJ. BRANCH
10 ms CONSTITUENTS. MAY 10, 1860.

Inv the northern people with view to retafd the
growth and curail the political power of she south
'ern States, may be said to have esnpenceu aoou'
thirty years ago.
The ayowed object then %Ss the abolition OF sla-
very in the District of Columbia, in the forts, arse
nails and backwards belonging to the government
and Ia Florida, which was the only organzeo Ter
ritery Of the Union. The means OF agitation ADOPT
ed was TO food Congress with immense numners OF
petitions signed by men, women anu cniuien'
praying for those objects.
No fear was entertained by the South OF any ac-
4ion by Congress favorable to the object OF the Pc
ti,ioners for there were not at that time twenty
ayowed Abolitionists in both its branches; but so
avsrse were our representatives TO the INTRODUCTION
of the subject INTO Congress, on any pretext or Tor
INV nurpose that they adopted the very extreme
policy of Directing to even the reception of the Pc
If in this they erred at all, it was from of
anxiety to keep the subject out of Congress.
After a few years this agitation assumed new
and more practical form. The new system OF at
tack was embodied in the Wilmot proviso, by which
1t was proposed to exclude slavery from all the Ter
ritores BY act of Congress. So rapid had been the
growth of abotionism that the Congress which sat
in 1913 was probably in favor of the proViso and,
under subterfuge, it was ingrafted on the oregon
bill The South resisted it not only on grounds OF
Justice and equality but breach Of the Constl,
tuition We insisted that every community should
he permitted to regulate its domestic affairs at
such time and in such way as the Constitution al
lows, and that any Interference by Congress was
inexpedient and unjust if not unconstitutional.
The sClayton compromise = which was offered
in the same year, was simply proposition that
Congress should take cognizance OF the subject,
leaving it to the local law under the adjudication OF
the courts The whole South, including Mr.. Cal
houn, advocated and voted for it except eight Wing
members of the House Of Representatives and two
members of the Senate.
La ont ha EaPtt (Tpnnral
nominated and voted for by the South, after he
wrote the Nicholson letter." for there was diff
ference of opinion at the time as to what the letter
meant on one point All agreed, however, that it
meant total nou-interference by Congress- and so
well did that suit the views of the South that we
were willing to forgive his equlvocal language about
sauatter sovereignty
Then came the "compronise measures OF lS5O
By them we gave up the slave trade in the District
of Columbia; the admission Of California, 1.-THE orig
nal of squatter sovereignty and enough OF Texas to
make State And what did we get in return for
these large concessions? A fugitive slave law, no
better than that we already had because the north
ern States will not allow either to be executed with
in their limits; a stipulation that Utah and New
Mexico should "be admitted into the Union with or
without slavery, their constitutions should pre-
scribe !" and what valued most of all, an under
standing that thereafter intervention by Con-
ress should be the established policy of the govern
ment So eager were we to keep the slavery ques-
ton out Of Congress. that we to have thought
scarcely any price too great tie pay for it.
Next in order came the Kansas and Nebraska act
of 1854.
In 1850 we had obtained non-interference by Con-
gress in Utah and New Mexico, and promise Of
the same to future Territories. We had paid high
price in advance and in 1854 it to be determin
ed whether the bargain would be adhered to. Nom
Intervention by Congress, total and<na exclusion
of the slavery question from Congress, were every
l. i
Congress; we carried States; we elected the Presi
dent on it After twenty years of hard struggle,
through all of which We kept this one point con-
stantly and steadily in view. we trumphed and eS-
tablisbed it as the fixed policy of the government
that thereafter Congress should not discuss slavery,
agitae it nor legsiate about it except to carry
out the express provisions of the Constitution.
That in this long and murderous warfare upon
her dearest rights, the South may have committed
some errors in matters of policy, is not improbable.
She may have accepted issues she ought not to have
accepted; she may even have pushed sound princi-
pies to excess sometimes; but the tenacity with
which she has chung to the one idea of excluding
the slavery question from Congress is worthy of all
commentator, and has mainly contributed to her
ultimate success.
In view Of the fact that within the last ten years
fugitive slave law has been passed stringent in
its provisions we asked for-the odious Missouri
compromise has been repealed-the bred Scott de-
Te0QereQ-a0Q
Congress has been established distinguished SEN
ator from Georgia mr. Toombsl could truly declare
in the Senate short time ago, that at no time IN
its history had the federal government more faith
fully discharged its duty to the South than within
the last ten years The evils under which We suf
fer not caused BY the failure of Congress to do
its duty, but by the notification of its laws by
northern States, and the reasonable conduct of
their citizens.
Having thus briefly brought under notice the
prominent points in the history of the slavery agi
tation. with view to remind you that non-interfer
ence by Congress is what the South has heretofore
contended for, am prepared to enter upon the dis
cussion of a new doctrine recently made prominent
which promises no present advantage to the South
and which may ultimately deprive its citizens of all
participation in the common Territories of the
Union. l alude to the doctrine of congressional
protection to slavery in the Territories The dis
rupton Of the Democratic Convention at Charleston
is its first fruit; but fortunately the delegates as
sembled there were not entirely bereft of their
senses, and by adjourning over to Richmond and
Baltimore they have placed it in the power of the
Democratic people to interpose and us from ruin
Will you insist on having that doctrine incorpo-
rated into the platform Of the Democratic party
the sole condition on which you will act with it in
the approaching contest with the Republican party
Or are you willing to beat the Republican party
on the same terms we have heretofore beaten them
on; rather than not beat them at all?
That is the question you are to decide between
this and the 18th of June, when the Convention
will reassembe in Baltimore, and it is fairly stated
for have not seen an individual who believes that
either fragment Of the Democratic party can defeat
them single-handed, and many are Of opinion that
both combined cannot accomplish the good work.
At time so full Of perils as the present, would
feel dsinclined to ask for the adoption of any new
tenet even if it promised additional security to the
South. But, in this new doctrine l see under the
q insidious garb of projections nothing but hidden
dangers and surrender, even before the adversary
has demanded it of all the fruits of twenty years Of
successful struggle with Freesolsm and Abolition
ism: The whole doctrine is embodied in three prop
ositions, which will state:
l.. The citizens of the slaveholding States have q
right to remove with their slaves into the Terrific