The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-10-02


are public journalist Mr. Editor, and have been for
years, and far your influence goes you to that
tent give complexion and tone to public sentiment.
How do you pretend to reconcile your present position
in which you denounce Mr. Douglass doctrine as ruin
Gus and falsewith your announcement to the country
a few months ago-"That the Territories as we'll as
the States have the right establish prohibit slav
cry they may elect" We have proved this you,
and there it stands so he ~ that runs may read
Douglas Democrat. .-5-- -se.
We do not dodge-we entertain now precisely the
same sentiments have heretofore and we back out
from no previous position. But the above quotation
does not represent language correctly. Here is
what we said speaking of one of Mr. Douglas speeches
previous to the meeting of the Baltimore Convention
in support of the doctrine Of n-intsrpentiOn:
1.-THE speech is triumphant vndication of the prin-
cpe that Congress ought not to interfere with slavery
but leave the people of the States and Territories to
establish or prohibit it as they may elect"
There is squatter sovereignty about that-we still
maintain that Congress ought interfere to estab
ish prohibit slavery but leave the people of terri
tory, when they to form State Constitution, free
to settle the matter to suit themseves-but deny
now did then, the right of territorial legisa-
ture to prohibit southern people from moving into the
territory and there holding their slaves while the
rtorial condition remains and in the speech referred
did not understand Mr. Douglas as asserting that
doctrine, though he did in speeches before and
since. We in favor of non-interyention both by
Congress and the territorial legislatures This the
meaning of the KansasNebraska act and of the Gin
cinnat platform understood by all parties at the
South. But Mr. Douglas running upon the hy4
pothesis that the do that which the
cannot do-that territorial Legislature (while
the territorial condition remans) prohibit slavery by
either direct unfricndy legislation That's the doc
trine of Mr. Douglas now, and however much we may
have appreciated his services to the democratic party
heretofore, cannot support him now.
Moreover, since delivering the speech to which
alluded in the paragraph quoted above, Mr. Douglas
has changed his ground and shifted his sails consider
ably He speaks in favor of protective tariff,
of coercng sovereign States into submission and of
hanging southern States Rights men, who knowing
their rights should dare maintain them If therefore,
we had been in avor of Mr. Douglas nomination.
have sufficient ground for opposing it now. 81"
But while oppose his election we have not SLAM
dered and abused him the Douglas organ charges
US with dong-we have not published one half the
charges which find brought against him. though we
may have to do in defence of the party which he
and his friends are now assailing.
Now to the charge that at time were for
Douglas nomination We deny it, and defy any one
to show the proof. In discussion last summer, with
the Fayetteville Observer, we remarked follows:
"After reading this article, some persons may make
up their minds that in favor of Douglas nomi
nation. But not soft we had choice it would be
some one else" --r ...--s -.
And again, in another issue we said: .-. .. ..a.
"The Fayetteville Observer is mistaken in supposing
that the Western Democrat is a Douglas paper.
1t is true have assaulted Mr. Douglas but have
frequently defended him. but we have yet advo-
Gated his nomination."
And on divers other occasions expressly stated
that not the particular friends of Douglas, al
though defended him from the attacks of SOME who
are now praising him. If We are not mistaken, the
editor of the Douglas organ himself denounced Mr.
Douglas course in regard to the Lecompton Consttu
ton. -