The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-05-16
From an Occasional Correspondent
MR.. DOUGLAS SPEECH IN REPLY TO JET
FERSON DAVIS

| hASHlNGTOS, May
The expected speech of Senator Douglas in reply
to that of Jefferson Davis, was made to-day to
crowded Senate and thronged galleries His
| friends claim that it was the most powerful and
complete justification of his position which he has
yet made, and his opponents concede that it was
brilliant effort, full of adroitness presenting his
side of the case in the best manner in which it
could be put. He commenced by saying that the
doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with sla
very in the Territories was preached as early as
| lS47, by various Southern State Conventions and
| Legislatures, and was incorporated in the Demo-
cratic platform of 1913, mainly at the instance and
| by the desire of Southern politicians. The Mich
olson letter of Gen. Clss, he alleged, was written
| many months before its date, and shown to South
ern Senators, and with full knowledge of its con-
| tents, and of the squatter sovereignty views of
General Cass, that gentleman was nomina-
! ted at Baltimore mainly by Southern votes
Mr.. Davis, he further remarked, support
ed that nomination, it was true condemn,
| ing the platform, but notwithstanding sustaining
| the champion OF squatter sovereignty. The nomi-
| nation OF such man was not then deemed a sufli-
cient cause for the disruption of the Democratic
party, much less for dissolution of the Union;
nor was the doctrine of non-intervention then re-
| garded as political heresy. He quoted from the
| proceedings of the Convention of 1913, to show
that report and protest, submitted that occasion
| by Messrs. Yancey, of Alabama, McGehee of Flo
| rlda, and Commander, of South Carolina, affirming
the doctrine of protection to slave property in the
| territories, was voted down in that body by ZIG
nays to SO yeas-Virginia, North Carolina Misss-
| sppi, Louisiana, Texas and other Southern States
recording their votes in the negative. Yet some
| of these States had seeded from the Charleston
Convention because their example of 1S4s
had been followed. Mr.. Dougl las then quoted
| largely from the action of Southern Conventions
and Southern Legislatures to show that his doc
trine of had been fully supported
by the South; and he asked if he could forgive her
| cOuld he pOt fnru
| him for his consistent adherence to it2 Passing
| then to the consideration of the Compromise mea-
sures of $780, he contended that they were entire
ly based upon the doctrine of noninteryenton, and
quoted extensively from the debates thereon to sus
tain this position. He admitted that Mr.. Davis had
| opposed those measures, but he reminded him that
he had been overthrown by his opponent, Mr.. Foote
on that issue in Mississippi, and that in all the
Southern States the secession party had met with
| the same fate. The Compromise measures of 1850
were accepted by the South final settlement of
the slavery question, but the secessionsts were
mercifully permitted to re-enter the Democratic
fold. In like manner all who willing to sup
port the nominee would be admitted at
Baltimore; the majority would not prescribe the
minority for differences Of opinion-quarter would
be shown. Mr.. Davis here interrupted Mr. Doug
las, exclaiming, with great excitement of manner
striking his hand upon his breast with vebe
mence, 81 spurn your quarter-I spurn it p to
which Mr.. Douglas quietly replied, "Just as spurn-
ed yours the other day." Mr. Douglas then pro-
ceeded to show that the doctrine of protection to
J
Union, and had been the favorite theory of ayowed
secessionists such Yancey, Rhett and others for
a number of years. He did not include the Sena-
tor from Mississippi in that class as he believed
him to be sincerely attached to the Union but his
policy, if successful, would have a disastrous eff
feet When Mr.. Rhett was alluded to, Mr. Ham
mond, of South Carolina, endeavored to make an
| explanation, but Mr.. Douglas firmly declined
yielding the floor, having resolved not to permit
any interpretations.
Mr. Douglas also reminded Mr.. Davis that he
would not have been Secretary of War but for the
success of Gen. Pierce in 1852 and that success
could not have been achieved had not the party
planted itself upon the doctrine of non-interver-
ton. The next topic referred to was the Kansas
Nebraska act of 1854, which Mr. ID. argued at
great length was based upon this identical doc-
trine and understood and accented at the
South. He read the resolutions of the Georgia
Legislature, passed in that year. to show that this
Gratis had changed their minds SINCE but if he
could forgive them for that could not they forgive
him for his consistent adherence to their old nrin-
cipes? Mr.. ID. next examined the Democratic
platform of 1856, which he alleged was framed in
strict accordance with the legislation of 1880
, and 1854. Alabama, he remarked came to that
Convention instructed to insist upon the
adoption of the principle of Congressional non in
PREVENTION; and now she secedes from Charleston,
because the majority of the Convention remained
faithful to the action taken at her instance four
years ago. Abiding to the contest for the Speak
ersbip between Richardson and Banks he said that
at that time the former charged by the South
| ern Opposition with being Squatter Sovereignty
man, in response to which he wrote letter. taking
the identical ground on which he (Douglss) had
always stood. Yet after that letter, Richardson
cot every Southern Democratic vote but one-that
of a gentleman from South Carolina who had pre-
yiously declined to vote for him. He believed that
he was quite as good non interventionst as Rich
ardson, and ought to be as acceptable to the South
| This provoked laugh
/ At this point Mr.. Douglas became so much ia
tioued, having spoken for three hours and ten mi
mites, that an adjournment was suggested and car
! RED. He will conclude tomorrow. Mr.. Davis