Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-09-05

opinions on these public questions that wish to
conceal anywhere for hold that so long we i've
under a constitution which is common to all the
States Of the Union any political creed is radically
wrong which cannot be ayowed alike in all the
States of this Union.
Why cannot you of the South and the North live
in peace together under this constitution, as our
fathers made it9 The only reason is that there is
an attempt to create uniformity through the action
Of the Federal Government in the local and domes-
tic institutions of the States. Mr. Abraham Lin
coin, now the black Republican candidate for the
President, when some two years ago candidate for
the United States Senate against me, commenced
his opening speech with this proposition: will try
to give his precise language near as can from
recollection, and believe have quoted the pas
sage thousand times. He said, "that house di-
vided against itself cannot stand this government
divided into free and slave States cannot permanent
" endure, that either slavery must be extended to
all the States it must be placed in the course of
ultimate extinction in all the States, they must be-
come all free or all slave"
Now, that was his proposition: replied to that
speech the moment got home took bold issue
with him, and made the canvass of Illinois on that
proposition and one other. The other was. he as
sailed the Supreme Court decision in the bred Scott
case, and defended it. These were the two issues
upon which we fought that battle. Mr.. Seward
made bis celebrated Rochester speech four months
afterwards, in which he put forth the doctrine Of
the irrepressible conflict borrowing it from Lincoln,
who was the author and enunciator of that princi-
pie that the Union cannot exist, divided into free
and slave States, but must become all free or all
slave The black Republican party is based on the
theory of making them all free States; the Seces-
sion party is based the theory that the Terrific
ries and consequently the States must all be slave,
whether the people want them so or not. / hold to
the doctrine that uniformity in the domestic insti-
tutons of the different States is neither possible
desirable; slavery may be good in place aud bad
in another. 1t may be necessary in one State, and
unnecessary in another. And so with every other
domestic institution. Our fathers knew when they
made this government, that in country as broad
this, with such variety of SOIL of climate, and
of productions, there must necessarily be CORES
pondBg variety of interests requiring separate and
different laws in each locality. They knew that the
laws which would suit the granite hills of New
Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice and tobac
plantations Of the Carolinas. They knew that
the regulations necessary in mining district like
California would be unsuited to the wheat and
fields of Illinois. Hence they provided that each
State should retain its own sovereignty, with Lee
gIsature of its own in order that each might have
just such laws it chose This right therefore of
each State to have laws different from every other
one, lies at the very foundation Of our system of
government Uniformity, regardless of the wants
and condition of the people, is the worst despotism
you can inflict upon any people.
cessionsts of the South admit that this doctrine of
the right of each State to regulate and decide for
ITSELF is good doctrine in the States, but will not
do in the Territories They admit that i'm the States
you have an inherent right to govern yourselves,
but you lose it when you go to the Territories
Why not allow Territory to do it as well as a
State? Why, they tell you that Territory is not
a sovereign power, and therefore cannot do 1t that
none but sovereign powers have right to exercise
the privileges of selfgovernment Our fathers Of
the revolution did not think so. The revolutionary
struggle began in defence of the right of dependent
colonies dependent territories dependent provinces
to exercise this right of selfgovernment as well
sovereign States None but the Tories of the revo-
luton ever contenGed before that the right of self
government was to be restricted to sovereign States
George the Third and Lord North, his Minister, and
his Tory friends on this continent, all denied the
right of the people of these colonies to regulate their
own affairs. They all said that the people of the
colonies had rights except those the King grant
ed them in their charter. The same old doctrine.
Our fathers of the Revolution told the Tories that
they did not get their rights from the King, but
they got them from God Almighty. Ga voice, "a
better source") And the people of the Territories
will be likely to tell you that they do not get their
rights from Congress, they get them from purer
source. daughter and applause.) From what l
have said you will see that unless am right in
maintaining this principle of selfgoyernment for
the people of the Territories, our fathers of the
Revolution must have been wrong IN that struggle.
There is no argument used by the Secessionists
against "squatter sovereignty" as they term it
that they have not copied from the Tories of the
Revolution in almost its identical language. Voices
good" and applause) But of course these gen.
temen very sincere in denouncing this doctrine
of non-interference by Congress. l wish they had
been frank enough to denonnce it before they had
Joined me in helping to sustain it They knew
when they adopted the Cincinnati platform that
this was the doctrine. Read that platform. 1t de-
clares in so many words, non-interferenee by Con-
gress with slavery in the States and Territories At
Charleston every friend had from the Northwest
offered to take the Cincinnati platform, word for
word, as it read. These men would not take it =
They said it was not good Democracy. How came
that platform to be adopted in 1856, if it not
sound? You know that it was adopted at the sug-
gestion of the Alabama Legislature, on four propo
sitions drawn by Mr.. Yancey, and when introduced
into the Cincinnati Convention, received the votes
of every delegate from every State in the Union,
free and slave. The South proposed it and we of
the North said it is fair and just and will take
it 1t was adopted by unanimous vote, and four
years AFTER you are told that man is traitor to
the South who stands by the pledge we all made at
Cincinnati. There is something strange about this.
cannot change as rapidly as that (Applause.) If
the Democratic party will stand now where they
did then, there would be no~troube. In order to
get out of the scrape these men have turned round
and charged me with having said would not stand
by the bred Scott decision. / tell them now that
every man who makes that charge hereafter will
know that he is classifying the TRUTH Then, what
is the cause of the trouble in the Democratic party?
It is an attempt to introduce new article OF faith
into the Democratic creed in direct violation of the
former creed of the party fiji an attempt to again
introduce this slavery question into the halls Of
Congress, and have Congress decide it. So long
that question remains in Congress, there never will
be peace; and If We expect to live together, we
must agree to Danish this whole subject from Con-
gress, remand Il to the people interested in it, and
let the Supreme Court explain the Constitution in
reference to each case it arises; then will have
peace.
A gentleman here said: There is in the minds
of large portion Of the conservative people of the
Southern States an apprehension that the purpose