The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25


sippi were to become the rule of action in
the southern States. I know not what he
meant but the country understood and be.
lieved, so far as know, that the fate of the
Union depended upon those States agreeing
to acquiesce or not acquiesce. I do not
doubt the attachment of the Senator from
Mississippi to this Union do not doub
his devotion to his country. His services
in the field and in the Cabinet and in the
Senate, have proved his attachment; but
do believe, that il he had been sustained in
his appeal to the people of Mississippi
against the compromise measures of 1850
the Union could not have been preserved
Heappealed to Mississippi. General Foote
was the standard bearer of the friends of the
compromise measures of 1850; the Senator
Mr.. Davis] was the standard bearer of his
own views as he has expressed them in the
Senate. The world knows the result. Mis-
sissippi decided against the Senator, Mr..
Davis, and in favor of bis opponent. Mis-
sissippi rebuked this doctrine of Intervention
and placed her Foote upon it.
How was it in Alabama? There YAM
cey led of, and was sustained by the same
body of men that lately attempted to break
up the Charleston Convention. The same
Yancey who avowed the same doctrine OF
intervention at Baltimore in l848, when it
was voted down by his own party, that same
Yancey boldly bore the flag of the interven-
tionists of Alabama against the compromise
measures of 1850; but Alabama, like Mis-
sissippi, told Mr.. Yancey and his co-inter-
ventionists to obey the laws of the land and
acquiesce in the principle of non.intervention
es affirmed in the measures of 1850.
In Georgia, too, the battle ragged all along
the line, as the Senator from that State
Toombs] can bear testimony. He found
it necessary to form union of Union men
against the opponents of the compromise
measures of 1850. The battle waged fierce
y and savagely. You, sir, addressing Mr..
Toombs] and your associates were denounced
as submlssiOnists because you sustained the
principle of nOn- intervention, as affirmed in
the compromise measures of 1850. They
were not going to submit mo, not they !;
but when the election came, Georgia decid-
ed against them, and in favor of the COM
promise measures, if l recolect right, by
about twenty-one thousand majority. Then,
instead of being the ERE eaters, they them>
selves in turn became the submissionists !;
but they submitted by compulsicn of their
own people. The people told the Senator
before my eye Mr.. Iverson] that he must
submit to the doctrines which he taught in
his speeches of l848, when General Cass
was the candidate for the Presidency.
So in South Carolina. Your Rhetts led
the forces there against the compromise
measures. The gallant and patriotic Butt
Ter, who, although be had opposed the
measures as Senator, feeling that it was
his duty to sustain the constituted authori-
ties, on the other hand, led those who were
in favor of acquiescing in the action of Con-
gress. And South Carolina herself decided
against those men who were going to break
up parties and the Union on this question
of Intervention AMI non.interventiOn.
NO PARTY TEST.
Here you have the verdict of the Ameri-
can people, north and south, in favor of the
doctrine of non-intervention. The southern
interventionists, who had been defeated and
overthrown at home, would submit, not
from choice, but because they could not
help it; and they said then to US, "Let US
reunite the Democratic party, and present a
united front against the Abolitionists of the
north" We said to them: "Gentlemen,
although you have erred; although you have
erred egregiously on this question, in re-
sisting non-intervention, we will forgive you,
if you will come up to Baltimore and ac-
quiesce in a resolution establishing nom
Intervention for the future" We received
the Senator from Mississippi on the terms,
as we supposed, of acquiescence in the COM
promise measures of 1850, and the affirm.
ance of non-intervention as the rule of the
party in the future. We granted him
"quarter" after be had been condemned, and
was ready for execution
Mr.. Davis: scorned it then, and scorn
it now.
Mr.. Douglas: Yes, sir; as l scorned his
threat not to grant quarter" the other day.
like the spirit that animates him to scorn
quarter" But, sir, the convention at Bal
timore, nevertheless, did ratify and confirm
these compromise measures as containing
the rule of action Of the party. He will not
deny that the convention, by unanimous
vote, decided in favor OF the compromise
AuCoouACS, tuoC OCuCLdI lCTCC was uOuIQ.
ated for President on that issue; that he
was elected on that issue and none other;
that he never would have been elected but
for that issue; and the Senator from Mis-
sissippi became Secretary of War by
virtue of the same issue. These are stub
born facts. He never could have be-
Secretary of War if the Democratic nom
inee had not been elected. Gen. Pierce could
never have been elected or nominated if be
had not stood upon the issue of non-interven-
ton by Congress with slavery in States and
Territories. When the party came together
we, the friends of the compromise measures
of 1850; we, the friends of nom Intervention
were magnanimous and tolerant. We made
no issues upon those who had differed with
US; we were generous and forgiving; we did
not remind them of their fault, nor of their
humiliation. We recognized them as our
equals. We never expected to be told that
We were to be pursued to the death; and
that mo quarter" was to be granted to us
whenever you got the accidental power to
infiict revenge. We are tolerant. If we
succeed now, we do not propose to prescribe
anybody because of difference of opinion
so long as be remains in the Democratic
organization and supports its nominee.
KANsAs-NEBRAsKA BILL.
Mr.. DOUGLAS next took up the history of
| the Kansas ebraska bill. After quoting