The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1860-10-06


ting slavery into those Territories could no,
command one Southern vote in this House
1t is due to both sections Of the country and
to the people to expose this groundless
charge. What, then, is the present condition
OF Nebraska and Kansas ! Why, sir, there
is no government, no slavery, and very little
population there, (for your Federal laws ex-
clude your citizens y but law remains on
your statute book forever prohibiting slavery
III these Territories. 1t is proposed simply
to take off this prohibition, but not to make
an enactment in affirmancc of slavery there.
Now in the absence Of any law establishing
slavery III that region, previous to the pro-
hibiting act. it is too clear for dispute. that
the repeal Of the prohibition has not the
affirmative effect of fixing slavery in that
country The effect of the repeal, therefore,
is neither to establish nor exclude. but to
| leave the future condition of The IerriOry
nhoHy dependent on The inhabitants, subject
only TO such limitations as the Federal Con-
stitution may impose. But to guard fully
against honest misconstructon, and even
against malicious pelverson, the language of
the bill is perfectly explicit on this point
lSee App. Con. Globe, uol. 90, p. AL.
Has Douglas himself ever expressed the doc.
trinc of absolute non. intervention in more
emphatic language than this ? Never.
Two years later, June 9th, 1856, Mr.
Breckenridge, after his nomination by the
Democratic party for the Vice.Presdency,
said in formal speech of acknowledgement
at Lexington.
Upon the distracting question of domestic
slavery their position is clear. The
whole power of the Democratic organi-
cation is pledged to the following PROPOSE
tons: THAT CONGRESS SHALL NOT
| INTERVENE UPON THIS SUBJECT IN
| THE TERRITORIES. OR IN THE DIS.
| TRlCT OF COLUMBIA: THAT THE
| PEOPLE OF EACH TERRITORY SHALL
DETERMINE THE QUESTION FOR
THEMSELVES, and be admitted into the
Union upona footing ofperfcct equality with
the original States, without discrimination
on account of the allowance or prohibition of
slavery.
AT subsequent stage in the canvass of
1896, MIR. Breckenridge delivered a speech in
his own behalf at Tppecanoe, in which he
reafilrmed as follows the views he expressed
in June:
FOR ITS OBJECT THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY
Nor with any to prevent the people Of
state OR TERRITORY from deciding the uues-
tion ofexistence with them for themselves.
happened TO be in Congress when the
Nebraska bill passed. and gave it my voice
and vote. and because it did what it dld-viZ:
lr ACK NowLEDGED THE RIGHT OF TIE PEOPLE
OF THE TERRITORY TO SETTLE THE QUESTION
nd not
what DO not now believe, that it lcgislatcd
slavery into the Territory The Democratic
party Is NOT ApRO.SLAvERY PARTY.
The people of the Territories. under the
Kansas Nebraska act, have the full right to
establish or prohibit slavery JUST AS A STATE
WOULD.
10 add word of comment to this would
be " wasteful and ridiculous excess" 1t as
scrts the doctrine of absolute non.iutcrycn-
ton as plaiuly as language can assert it.
We may per,inently add. however, that, MIR.
Douglas, Ew days ago in speech at Con.
cord, New Hampshire, bore his personal tes-
timony to the fact that Mr. Breckenridge in
the campaign Of 1856 advocated this doctrine
in precisely the same extent and with exactly
the same construction that the speaker him
SELF advocated and now advocates it.
Douglas declares solemnly that in the CAM
palgn of 1856 ne spoke from the same stump
with Brock inridge, and that the latter incui-
Gated squatter-sovereignty with al. the might
Of his eloquence and zeal. 81 made speech
es," is Douglass language, " from the same
STAND with John Z. Breckenridge in 1856
when he was advocating his own claims to
the Vice Presidency, and heard him 90 to the
er'rcme lchgM on popular sovereignty IN the
Territories. To the like effect is the testi-
mony Of Cassus NJ. Clay, who, though q
Republican. is gentleman of irreproachsble
veracity. Veil, now" said Mr.. Clay, in
his speech in Louisville last month, "where
is friend Breckenridge! Why, sirs. met
him over in the Free States. and where do
you think he was then? Why, he was right
alongside of Cash Clay. He was as good
Free Soiler as Cash Clay. lie had one method
Of making Kansas free and / had another
THAT WAS ALL THE DIFFERENCE. liz WAS
FOR NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., AND WAS LOOKED
Upon AS DOUGLASS RIGIIT-HAND MAN." And
others testify the same thing.
Well, here Mr.. Brock inridge's movements
with respect to the question rested until the
opening of the State canvass in kentucky last
year. At this period it is known that the
Democracy of the State were divided into
two rival factions namely. the Brcckinridsc
and Boyd parties. AS the public is aware.
in the State Convention that met to appoint
the Democratic standard bearer, the Breckin.
ridge party triumphcd, Mr.. Magoflin the fast
personal and political friend of Mr.. Breckin.
ridge received the nomination for the COVER
norship, and the whole direction and rcspon-
sibility Of the canvass, so far as the Democra-
cy was concerned, dcvolved on the Breckin.
ridge wing Of the party. The struggle on the
part of the Democracy was considered by all
sides as purely Breckenridge fight. The
victory, if victory should be won. would in
the universal estimation, enure TO Mr.. Brock
inridge benefit, and the shock of defeat. if
defeat should follow. would be blow to his
political fortunes. Under these clrcumstan.
ces, Mr.. Breckenridge naturally felt deep
concern i'll the management and issue of the
canvass. lie was present at his home in
LeXinp ton during the frhpreec or Tho ,..boI