The semi-weekly mountain Democrat., 1860-09-26
County CentrAI Committee.
Douglas and has Record.


And leaves the reader still in doubt
Whether the snake that made the track
Was going south or coming back.
Now that Stephen A. Douglas has com.
plctcly boxed the compass on the question
of siavcry in The territories, We propose
briefly to trace his tortuous course, and
from his own record to show the utter
heartl, ssness Of all lis professions Of prin-
ciplc, in that connection. Ofall the dem
agogues that have gained a national repu-
tation, we think we shall show him to be
the most INSCRIPTIONS and barcfaced.
We propose to take four distinct views Of
him-lst, as Congressional intervention
iSt d1dinst slavery in the territories I'd,
as q nOn-interventiOnist, or advocate Of
Squatter sovereignty Sd, as q defender
of the "irrepressible conflict" and 4th,
as a Congressional intcrventionist for
slavery in the territories.
1sT. DOUGLAS Az INTERvENTIoNIsT AGAINST
SLAVERY.
In 1916, December Goth, while Joint
resolution was pending, presented by Mr..
Brown, Of Tennessee, for the admission Of
Texas into the Union, Mr.. Douglas offered
the following amendment:
"And in such State or States as may
be formed out Of said territory north Of
said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or
involuntary servitude, Except for crime)
shall be prohibited. - United States Stat
utcs-1s39-1e45, p. 79s.
He here not only seeks to employ Con-
grcssional intervention against slavery IN
the territories, but by his amendment
would prohibit States from having slavery,
even if their people wished it.
Again, on the 10th of August, 1848,
the bill for establishing the territorial gov.
crnment Of Oregon being before the Sen
ate, Mr.. Douglas offered an amendment
prohibiting slavery within the proposed
Territory, which was adopted, receiving
as he elsewhere tells us, the votes Of al
the Southern Senators.
In 1S4S, on the 23d Of October, the
Springfield (I!l.) Journal says Mr. Doug.
las made speech in that city, in which
he gave utterancc to the following:
The Missouri Compromise had mr.
origin akin to that of the Constitution ol
the United States, conceived in the spirit
of fraternal affection, and calculated tC
remove forever the danger which seemed
to threaten, at some distant day, to sever
tho social bonds Of union. All the evi
dencc ofpublic opinion Of that day seemed
to indicate that this Compromise had beer
canonized in the hearts Of the American
people as sacred thing, which no ruth
less hand would ever be reckless enough
to disturb"
Bear in mind that the sacred thing
which was thus canonized in the hearts
of the American people," was Congress
sional prohibition Of slavery in the Terri
tories.
In 1850 this sacred" measures Of Con
gressional intervention against slavery
was attacked by John @. Calhoun in the
United States Senate, when Mr.. Dougla:
came promptly to its defense, as follows
"The next in the series Of aggression.
complained of by the Senator from Soutf
Carolina is the Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Compromise is an act o
Northern injustice, designed to depriv,
the South of her due share Of the Terri
tories! Why, sir, it was only the othe
day that the Senator from Mississippi
despaired Of any peaceable adjustment o
existing difficulties because the Missour
Compromise line could not be cxtendet
to the Pacific. That measure was origin
ally adopted in the bill for the admission
of Missouri, by q union of northern ant