The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25

Territory, with view to force them to have
the institution, whether they want it or not.
l tell you that the doctrine of the Demo-
cratic party, as proclaimed in lS45 and in
1852 at Baltimore, in 1856 at Cincinnati,
and in 1860 at Charleston, is that we must
resist, with all our energies, both these pro-
positions for Intervention. So long as the
people of Kansas do not want slavery, you
shall never force it on them by an act of
Congress, if l can prevent it. So long as
the people of New Mexico do want slavery,
you on other side of the Chamber shall never
deprive them of it, if can prevent it. You,
gentlemen in the Northeast or in the North
west, do not know what kind of laws and
institutions the people Of New Mexico desire
as we'll as they do themselves. Your people
in the Gulf States, or in those cotton States
that are to be plunged into revolution, do
not know what kind of laws and institutions
are adapted to the wants and interests and
happiness of the people of Nebraska so we'll
as the settlers in that Territory do. Our
doctrine-the doctrine of the Democratic
party as proclaimed at Charleston-is nom
interference by the Federal Government
with the local concerns and domestic affairs
of the people, either in the States or in the
Territories.
But, we are told that the necessary result
of this doctrine of non-ntervention, which
gentlemen, by way of throwing ridicule
upon, call squatter sovereignty, is to deprive
the South of all participation in what they
call the common Territories of the United
States. That was the ground on which the
Senator from Mississippi Mr.. Davis pre-
dicated his opposition to the compromise
measures OF 1850. He regarded refusal
to repeal the Mexican law as equivalent to
the Wilmot proviso; refusal to recognize
by an act of Congress the right to carry
slave there as equivalent to the Wilmot pro-
viso; refusal to deny to the Territorial
Legislature the right to exclude slavery as
equivalent to an exclusion. He believed at
that time that this doctrine did amount to a
denial of southern rights; and he told the
people of Mississippi so; but they doubted
it. Now, let us see how far his theory and
suppositions have been verified. 1 infer
that he told the people of Mississippi so, for
as he makes it charge in his bill of indict-
ment against me, that am hostile to south
ern rights, because gave those votes.
Now, what has been the result My
views were incorporated into the compro-
mise measures of 1850, and his were reject
ed. Has the South been excluded from all
the territory acquired from Mexico? What
says the bill from the House of Represen>
tatives now on your table, repeating the
slave code in New Mexico established by
the people themselves? 1t is part of the
history of the country that under this doc.
trine of non-intervention, this doctrine that
you delight to call squatter sovereignty, the
people of New Mexico have introduced and
protected slavery in the whole of that Ter
ritory. Under this doctrine, they have con-
verted tract of free territory into slave
territory, more than five times the size of
the State of New York. Under this doc.
trine, slavery has been extended from the
Rio Grande to the Gulf of California, and
from the line of the republic of Mexico, not
only up to sc . 30 but up to 38 CIV
ing you degree and half more slave ter
ritory than you ever claimed. In l848 and
l849 and 1850 you only asked to have the
line of $50 80. The Nashville convention
fixed that as its ultimatum. l offered it in
the Senate in August, 184S, and it was
adopted here but rejected in the House of
Representatives. You asked only up to
$50 go, and non-intervention has given
you slave territory up to 3S ., degree and
halt more than you asked ; and yet you
say that this is sacrifice of southern rights.
These are the fruits of this principle,
which the Senator from Mississippi regards
as hostile to the rights of the South.
Where did you ever get any other fruits
that were more palatable to your to your
taste, or more refreshing to your strength
What other inch of free territory has been
converted into slave territory on the Amer
lean continent, since the Revolution, except
| in New Mexico and Arizona, under the
principle of non>intervention affirmed at
Charleston II it be true that this princi.
pie of non-intervention has conferred upon
you all that immense Territory, has pro-
tected slavery in that comparatively north
ern and cold region where you did not ex-
pect it to 60, cannot you trust the same
principle further south, when you come to
acquire additional territory from Mexico
If it be true that this principle of non.in-
PREVENTION has given slavery all New Next
co, which was surrounded on nearly every
side by free territory, will not the same
principle protect you in the northern States
of Mexico when they are acquired, since
they are now surrounded by slave territory,
are several hundred miles further south,
have many degrees of greater heat, and
have climate and soil adapted to southern
products? Are you not satisfied with these
practical results Do you desire to appeal
from the people of the Territories to the
Congress Of the United States to settle this
question in the Territories? When you
distrust the people and appeal to Congress,
with both houses largely against you on
this question, what sort of protection will
you get? Whenever you ask a slave code
from Congress to protect your institutions
in Territory where the people do not
want it, you will get that sort of protection
which the wolf gives to the lamb you will
get that sort of friendly hug that the grizzly
bear gives to the infant Appealing to an
anti-slavery Congress to pass laws Of pro-
lection, with view of forcing slavery on
an unwilling and hostile people! Sir, Of all
the fatal schemes that ever could be devised
by the South or by the enemies of the South,
that which recognizes the right of Congress
to touch the institution of slavery either in
States or Territories, beyond the single case
provided in the Constitution for the rendi-