Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1860-05-26
NO. 20

One Of the protoundcst writer's of tho
age tells us: "Do not WELD to party ne.
cessity what may be essential to future
safety, nor conccde aSprinciplc, which,
however apparently abstract or mprac-
ticablc, may in the hands of hostility or
tanaticism become aspotent engine Of
mischief or destruction"
Mr. Seward so we'll understands the
importance Of distractions that in his
Cleveland speech hc#tells the Abolition
lists: "Corrcct your own error that
slavery has guarantees which may not
be repealed and ought not to he extin-
guished. You willthus soon bring the
parties of the country into an effective
aggression on slavery"
Now then, if an abstract error cor
rcctcd will be effective for aggression,
an abstract principle maintained must
be shield for protection.
If it be abstract, why should not the
North abandon it? Why does Mr. Doug
las cmphaticaIIy declare he will not ac-
ccpt nomination on platform EN-
bracing that principle? Why did his
friends, Stuart Of Michigan, Pugh, Of
Ohio, and Montgomery, of Pennsylvania,
tell the Convention that the North can
never ACCEPTING never, ncvcr?' (Ap-
plause.)
If it be an abstraction, why were we
told at Charleston that if the protective
principles were adopted the entire North
ern Democracy would be driven over to
the Black Republicans? If this ahstac-
ton be so potent ansenginc at the North,
if they cannot accept it with honor and
without the most disastrous consc-
quences, it is evident that it is there re-
garded as a vital principle, and yet we
torsooth are called on to conccdc it.
Why do the Northern people regard it
as SO vital? Because it underlies all your
Constitutional guarantees for slavery;
because it is a fundamental principle
ON which the institution Of slavery de-
pcnds.
The doctrine of projection involves
the idea of property; we. claim protec-
ton because we contendsthat slaves are
property, and that thereais no distinc-
ton between property insslaves and any
other species of propertyS The Supreme
Court has decided, and our right to car
ry slaves into the Territories is based
by the Supreme Court on the ground
that they arc property. Our Oonstitu.
tlonal guarantees, therefore, are based
on the idea ofproperty in slaves.
This idea is lepugnant to Northern
the Black Republicans re-
pndiate it; they inculcate the opposite
principle, adopted by the two dissenting
judges i'll the Dred Scott case. They
contend that slavery is municipal sta
tus dependent on municipal law, and
therefore local; they proclaim that a
human being is not susceptible of owner
ship, and therefore the rules applicable
to propcrty4do not regulate the relations
OF master and slave To ask us. then,
to abandon the principle of protection,
is to ask us to surrender the principle on
which is based our titles to our PROPERTY.
Again; the Southern people yearn for
expansion. Their eyes have for years
been intently and constantly fixed on
the hoary headed volcanoes of Orizaba.
and the undulating savannahs Of Central
America Why do we desire extension?
A desire for extension merely for the
sake of extension, is at once the most
fever of a nation, and the
rudest of stories in which an Attila ora
Timour far excels a Fabius or Wash
lngton. We desire extension in order
to expand our institutions; if the doc
trine Of protection be abandoned, bury
all hopes, stifle all aspirations for ex-
pansion. No sooner would Central
America or Mexico be annexed, than
emigrant aid societies, pushing ahead
INTO the Territories the redundant and
more mobile population of the North,
would lnclte the mongrel halfbreeds to
exclude slavery by legislative enact
ncnts, or non-legislativc discrimination;
,hus, indeed, would be realized the fond
nope Of fanaticism. Surrounded by d
GORDON Of free Territory, slavery, like
scorpion encirclcd by fire, would sting
tself to death" (Applause.)
1t is said this is personal warfare
IN particular candidate for popular
avor. 1t is personal only so far as a
eadcr is the impersonation Of his cause.
It is prepostcrous to suppose that fifteen
sovereign States, dissimilar in every
hing except the peculiar institution,
should unite as a band of brothers upon
my merely personal issue.
AS conceive, the principle in contro.
'crsy is fundamental, and cannot be
urrcndered without furnishing hostility
nd tanatlclsm with the most potent
nSlne for our destruction. Nothing re-
aalns except to insist on our Constitu-
lonal rights. Let ne tell you that the
history of our Republic teaches lis that
n no instance have the just demands of
he South been yet denied by the Demo-
ratio. u1rty If Irn arn tr,ln to f,,r