The Shasta courier., 1860-10-13
why We Support Douglas.

several years we have expressed the opinion
that Territorial Legislature could not, by pos
| tive enactment exclude slavery froma Territory
The opponents Of Douglas say that herein we
differ from him, and hence are inconsistent in
supporting him against Breckenridge.
Let US see. Douglas is in favor of the great
/ Democratic doctrine Of I" Non-interference by
Congress with slavery in State, Territory, or in
the District of Columbia" So are we, while
Breckinridge is opposed to that doctrine, which
the Cincinnati Platform itself pronounced to be
& the only safe solution ftie sldray question: and
avows the Numerically antagonistic doctrine
of " interference by Congress with slavery in"
the Territories, upon the happening Of certain
event Now when, as a member of the
Cincinnati Convention, we voted for the plat
/ form then adopted we believed what i: asserted
on this point, viz that non interference by Con-
gress with slavery " in State and Territory, or
the District Of Columbia" was tie only safe so
luton Of the siace'y question" We believe SO
still Hence we are forced to support any man
who believes as we do on that point, in opposi-
tion to any other man who differs with US on
the same point. Believing that doctrine to be
the only safe solution of the slavery question -
of necessity we must deem it, as did the Cincin-
natl Convention deem it, the only principle
"upon which the great national idea of the
people of this great country repose in its
determined conservatism OF the Unon"-in
other words, the only D." solution" Of the slavery
question whereby the Union may be preserved
and this glorious republic perpetuated.
Thus viewing the great question of Congress
sional non-interventiop, how immeasurably in
significant appear the minds of those men who,
blind to its magnitude and overshadowing i'm
portance, turn their faces in another direction
and split their throats" IN directing attention
to an abstract question: question that all
Southern men, in the language of Mr.. Orr, of
South Carolina know to be practically mat
ter of little moment'-a question wholly of a
judicial character, and that never can be finally
determined in political Conyenton-to wit ::
the question as to whether the people of a Ter
ritory, through their Legislature, may or may
not legisiate apon the subject of slavery
On this question we do disagree with Doug
las. We do not think Territorial Legislature
has legal right to virtually exclude slavery
g" by unfriendly legislation" That, however, is
| a question for the Courts to decide, and until
it is thus decided, it is an open question. Thus
Douglas treats it, declaring that if it is decided
against his view, such decision will simply
prove that those who differed from him we're,
not better Democrats, but better lawyers on
that point than himself We do believe, how
ever with Orr in 1856, that " certain local leg
islation for the purpose of giving protection
is essential to the maintenance of slavery in
the Territories, and that =" il the majority of the
people are opposed to the institution, and if
they do not desire it engrafted upon their ter
ritory all they have to do is simply to decline to
pass lars IN the territorial legislature 10 protect IT.
Hence, while asserting that Territorial Legisa-
lures have no legal right to exclude slavery by
" unfriendly legislation, we at the same time
admit, as did Orr in 1885, and as does such
men as Senator Brown, of Mississippi, Toombs,
and Stephens, of Georgia, and Gov. Letcker, of
Virginia-that they have the poper to do so.
We quote and endorse the language of Orr
snow, the legislative authority Of Terrific
ry is invested with discretion to vote for or
against laws We Miak Mey ought to pass la,cs
IN erery Territory, when the territory is open for
settlement, and shareholders 90 there, TO pro-
tect stare property. But if they decline to pass
such laws, what is the remedy? None sir"
This is just what Douglas means in his Free
port speech by the term " unfriendy legisla-
tien."
Thus, in the language of Mr. Orr "practi-
cally, it is matter of little moment" and in
the language of Mr.. Stephens, practically, it
amounts to nothing" whether the Territorial
Legislatures have or have not the right to legis-
late upon the subject of slavery. But the great
doctrine of Congressional Intervention,
that is of paramount Importance. That is a
question which comprehends the perpetuiy OF
this government. That is % the only sound and
safe ISOLATION of the slavery question the only
doctrine ,chereby his Union can be preserved!
Hence the man must be half idiotc who would
expect us to abandon the great defender of that
great and only Union-saving doctrinc, because
differ with him on question which A. H.
Stephens, for years the acknowledged General
issimo of Southern Democratic leaders, asserts
amounts to nothing practically Such a
man would expect us to play the part of Nero,
and fiddle while Rome burned