The Placer herald., 1860-10-06
From the Washington Constitution.
Who are the Disunionists.

Whenever one of two parties to con
troversy resorts to misrepresentation, and
false accusation as means of attack or de-
fence, the proof is Irresistible that he feels
that he is worsted and that his cause is bad
There is not day that passes during
which we do not see it ierated and reitera
ted by the so-caled democratic press in the
interest of Mr.. Douglas that Mr.. Brecken-
ridge and General Lane are "dsnnonists,"
and "dsorganizers," and that all who sup
port the nomination of the gallant Kentuck
ian, and the distinguished Senator from Or
egon, are abettors of disuuion and treason
to the democratic party.
Let US see who are the disunionists, and
who are they who thus question the devo-
ton to the Union, and LOYALTY to the demo
cratic party of such men as Breckenridge
and Lane, and the hosts of democrats who
support our nominees?
1t was agreed by the democracy of all
sections of the Union in 1854, and the
agreement was reatfirmed in 1856 that Con
gress should not interfere with slavery in
the Territories s,-that is, Congress should
have no power to establish or pro hibit sIa
very in any Territory. One section Of the
party believed that under the Constitution
the owner Of slave had as good right to
take that slave into Territory and hold
him there AS his property during the terri
torial condition, as the owner of any other
property recognized as such by the Consfi
tuition, would have to 90 there with that
property and enjoy it in peace and security.
This belief was founded on the fact that the
Territories do not belong to any one, two,
or more of the States, but that they be-
long to all the States in common, and are
consequently open to the citizens Of all the
States. Another section of the party con-
tended that slavery could not exist anywhere
without special municipal law establishing
it. Both these sections of the party were
Of opinion that Congress had no power to
interfere either to establish or prohibit the
institution, and that, therefore, the best way
to settle the question was to abide the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of the United States
in respect TO it. 1t was clearly question
of construction of the Constitution, and the
Supreme Court was the only tribunal COM
petent to decide it. So it was settled. So
it WAS universally understood. In March
1857, the Supreme Court of the United
States pronounced their judgment in the
case of bred Scotia case involving di-
rectly the very point in controversy, namely,
as to whether slave could be held in slave
~ in Territory. That judgment was in
favor of the South. 1t said that slaves were
property; that the Territories were open to
all the citizens of the United States; that
they could settle there with their property,
of every desert Upton, slaves included, and
that the Federal Government is pledged TO
protect them in the exercise and enjoyment
of that right. Throughout the length and
breadth of the land every democrat hailed
this decision as final settlement of an ex
istng question, and not a word was said by
single democrat either in opposition to
the constitutional doctrine which it laid
down or the binding nature of the judgment
The South was perfectly satisfied
In the winter of 1857, it suited the pur-
pose Of Mr.. Douglas to place himself in an
tagonism to his party on the question of the
Lecompton constitution of Kansas. During
that winter and the spring of 1858 he took
counsel from and acted with the black repub
Icans in opposing the democratic party. In
the summer of 1858 after the adjournment
of Congress he returned to this State and
commenced his canvass for re election to
the United States Senate. In order TO
conciiate the anti slavery element of that
State and "cut UNDER his abolition oppo
nent, he then for the first time denied the
bargain which he had made to abide the de