Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1860-02-25
The Correct Doctrine.

A correspondent of the Memphis Enquirer,
gives his reasons Tor opposing Mr.. DouGLAs
in the plaiuest sort Of language. 1t is well
worthy a Pernsal
DEAN nns.-Tbc question is frequently ask
ed why carnot every man in the South vote
COR Hon. Stephen A. Douglas. The question
has been put to me often, and my reply has In
variably been that | saw no diie ence bet
wecn Colonel Douglas and W. II. Seward SO
far as the practical result of the policy OF the
two men are concerned for under the policy
Of neither could the people of the South get
protection Of their slave property in The terri
tories Of the United States. Seward thinks
that Congress has the right, and ought to ex-
ercisc it, to abolish or to prohibit slavery IN
territories. Col. ID ,,glas believes that the
people of a territory. under the kansas-Ne-
braska bill, has the right to abolish slavery
in the territories. or (which is the same thing)
to refuse to pass laws to protect it. SO, you see
the only way the slave-holde! can be protect
ed when he goes into the territories, is by The
bred Scott decision. So the Great doct'Ine
contended for by the South VS.. non-in'crven-
ton, has been very successfully defeated
by the popular sovereignty doctrine
coutendcd for by Colonel Douglas, as set
forth in the Kansas Nebraska bull. The
Opposition party contended on the passage
Of the Kansas bill, that it contained the doc
trine Of %squatter and popular sovereignty.
The Democratic party commended that TO
such doc:line was contained in the bill: but
now, the great champion of Democracy, Ste
plen A. Douglas, contends that popular soves-
eighty is one Of the main features Of the bill.
and the very same gentlemen who were so
loudly crying out against the Opposition par
ty, because they voted for Mr.. Fillmore, and
complained Of the dividing the South, when
it was necessary TO be united 10 protect South
ern interests, are now calling on the Oppo-
sition not to divide the South, but act with
them in defeating . Black Republican,
May not gravely ask the question, how
much better off will we be, to elect a Dem
crat who promises to carry out the Kansas
bill, than we would be to elect a black Repub-
fican7 The question is now settled, tie pre-
set that the people Of u territory,
without regard to geographical lines) can
say to the man that goes into any territory
which we may hereafter acquire, "Stop, sir,
you cannot come here we, the people of
this Territory, have agreed that slavery shall
not be introduced into this territory. IF we
have not abolished it, we have refused to pass
to protect it, and the only chance yon
nave LOT protection IS That that you get under
the bred Scott decision" What beautiful
non Intervention doctrine this! That Cong
ress cannot prohibit your going into the terri
tories with slaves, but the people Of the terri
tories can drive you out by refusing TO protect
you in your rights. 1t is time, Mr.. Editor.
the Government was placed in the hands
of a party, whose file leader has the iirmness
and ability to see that all sections of the
country are protected equally and alike and
see that no factions, by such legerdemain as
stephen A, Douglas wishes to lasten on the
South, shall be enacted. What chance has
the South, should there be any acquisition of
Southern territory, to carry sIaveproperty in
to it, Abolition Aid Societies will be sent
to fill up the territories. and drive us cut
l hen the argument about climate and soil.
will do us no good. The precedent is cstab-
Iished in the Kansas bill, and not a word said
ahout climate and soil. The fanatic will say
Congress has given us the right to legislate
Tor ourselves. and we have conci,rled not TO
have slaves in this country.o Is this right?
Is 1t honesty and fair-dealinp with all por-
l'o"s OF the Union. as it should be! Every
man will say no.