Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-10-03

ty to their country. But although the columns OF
the democracy as well as the Union are thus
opened to right and left their opponents have, as
have told you, such small specimens of men in the
management of their affairs, and such bad cause,
that, upon my word, believe they will make q,
blunder and he won't get there after all Oh how
easy Pennsylvania and New York could close up the
column by union, and head him off lGreat APP
plause
Why, men of this Union, are we called upon now
to change the whole policy of this country, as |
have imperfectly traced it, from the purchase OF
Louisiana to the present time-that policy by which
we have gone expanding our territory and letting
the negro alone-simply saying to the Southern
men, There is territory-if you insist upon your
right go and try your negro there; II you can make
money with him there, you will keep hun there-lf
not you will be glad enough to get rid Of him-if
he doesn't run away from you you will have to run
away from him?" And if he only gets into place
where negroes bring ten per cent profit, you will
find plenty of Yankees there forthwith, buying them
up and working them. Talk of this specious, extra
morality of the North, as against the morality and
religious sense of the Southern 1t is pharisai-
cal hypocrisy; but will not go into that subject
it comes rather too near home to US all.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. VS.. sQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
And now will you indulge me further in taking
somewhat graver view of these issues which think
needlessly divide the democracy these rather the
oretical propositions of intervention and squat
ter sovereignty We have divided on the construc-
ton of platform. The Cincinnati platform is plain
enough and sound in every word Of 1t on the terri
toral issues The North satisfied with it. but the
South wanted explanation of conflicting construc.
TONS Was that unreasonable? Some democrats
had undertaken to explain that platform in another
way than its plain Interpretation. The South SIM
ply asked of US of the North what we meant BY
this platform. Was it not fair to answer? Has a
man any faith or opinion for which, when he is ques
toned, he is not willing to give reason9 "Do you
mean squatter sovereignty, or not, they asked, by
that PLATFORM" A portion of the Convention re-
fused to answer, and then came a severance. Anoth-
er portion of that Convention, which met in the
Maryland Institute, did answer, and they answered
that 1.-The Cincinnati platform meant precisely what
we have said it meant-that it meant simply that
every of the South owning property, should
have the right to 60, with his property, into
the common Territories of the country that man
owning property at the North has to go there with
his property; and that both were equally entitled to
protection under the Constitution" That is the
whole explanation OF the Cincinnati platform; and
was it not fair to make it? Letus see how the two
candidates understand it.
The country has witnessed in this canvass what
has rarely occurred beore-candidates for the Pres
itlency addressing the people from the stump
Without censuring Mr.. Douglas for having taken
the first STEP it is sufficient to say that the call
made upon Mr.. Breckenridge by his home constitu-
ency was such that he could not refuse 20 make a
public explanation of his opinions His opposing
candidate has replied to that speech. / confess
sorry to have to say that such able and brave
champions Of the democracy as Breckenridge and
Douglas should be opponents. Such state of
things should never have existed and should not
exist longer; but there the fact stands and must
deal with it it is. Mr.. Douglas SAYS that the OBJ
lection male to him by Mr.. Breckenridge is that he
is the representative of dogma, which dogma is
the principle of non-interventon by Congress with
slavery in the Territories, and for that the
split made at Baltimore.
That, allow me to saw, is a great mistake. The
national democracy which supports Mr. Breckin-
ridge, and Mr. Breckenridge himself affirm, adhere
to, and maintain the doctrine Of "ROn-intererence
with slavery in the Territories as the cornerstone
of their territorial policy.
The heresy of the squatter sovereignty dogma
consists in this-that it is only halfway non-inter-
vention, and makes non-intervention devour itself
1t restricts Congress from prohibiting but licenses
the territorial legislature to prohibit and destroy.
Congress- it says, shall not intervene with all its
power, but petty legislature the creature of Con-
gress, and paid per diem by Congress, may inter
vene a sovereign. Citizens Of the South may 90
with their slave property into the Territories, in
spite of all the power of Congress to prohibit but
the territorial legislature may disranchse the slave
holder and take away his property as soon as he
gets there.
That is the dogma which Mr. Breckenridge con-
dennis His doctrine of non-intervention is entire
aud complete-that neither Congress nor the Terri
tory shall intervene to impair destroy the equal
rights of the States in the common territory. This
is his precise language" Hands off the whole sub
ject of slavery by the federal government except
for one two protective purposes mentioned in the
Constitution-the equal right of sections in the
common territory. and the absolute power of each
new State to settle the question in its constitution"
"These," he adds, "are my doctrines and those of
our platform-and. what is more, they are the doc
trines of the Constitution"
Now is not this open and square, manly, and
above all misconstruc.ion Congress shall not in
tervene to prohibit destroy-the Territory shall
not intervene to prohibit destroy. The constitu-
ton Of the State shall alone lay down the fun
damental law of popular sovereignty.
That it is which gives significance to the rally cry
which our gallant leader has given the country of
"The Constitution and the Equality of the States"
Now, then,
is SLAVE LABOR PROPERTY?
Yes, says the Constitution; yes, says the Supreme
Court We stand upon that constitutional fact
Slave labor in fifteen States of this Union is proper
ty. 1t was property in every State in the Union
when the Constitution was formed, and by that
Constitution allowed to be imported as proper
ty, su6ec to duties for twenty years by each State
that chose to hold such property. Yes, sir, the
trade in slaves as property was made lawful CON-
merce for twenty years by the votes of Mdssachu-
oe1Io, OV""oCttO"t anu 4'oU 1IuWpsHTe uyutHSC TIE
protest of Virginia. Those three States voted with
Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Georgia,
in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, Delaware, Pennsylva-
mia, and New Jersey in the negatve-7 to 4.
And Ibis property so acquired and legalized I'M
der the Constitution has not ceased be property in
any one of the States of this Union, only by some
Constitution or State law abolish ing it.
1t is property in the labor of the slave not in the
man himSelf-there is no such thing as property in
man, permitted by any Southern law that exists
it is property in the labor of the man. There is
the distinction; and that fact may do away with
good deal of the sentimentalty about property in
men" You have property in horses or oxen, and
may XIII them, and nobody say you nay. Is there
any such property in man. any State OF the Uniong
No, there Is no property in man; it is property in
his labor; and any one who has an apprentice, or
minor son. has to certain extent property in that