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


believe, followed him but they came to
the conclusion that Delaware was not big
enough to divide. Laughter. Her cham.
pion returned back into the northern con-
federacy. Was it to keep watch, and guard
an abolition frontier for the benefit Of the
| cotton States? Is Delaware to be received
into Mr.. Yancey's southern confederacy az
ter while? Will he consent to allow Vir-
GINA to come? Will North Carolina be
accepted by him? Will Tennessee be per-.
mitted to come in, now that she has got rid
of her free.soil Senator? Will he allow
Kentucky to join, when such Abolitionists
as Clay and Crittenden have ceased to reps
resent her? beg the pardon of the Sena>
tor from Kentucky for repeating his name
in this connection. The gallant Senator
from Kentucky an Abolitionist ! free soil
er A man whose fame is as wide as civi-
lization, whose patriotism, whose loyalty to
the Constitution was never questioned by
men of any party! Applause in the gals
leries. Oh, with what devotion could l
thank God if every man in America was
just such an Abolitionist as Henry Clay and
John j. Crittenden! Renewed applause.
The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Foot.) Or
der -
MIR. Douglas. wish to God, that the
whole American people were just such Ab>
olitionists as Clay and Crittenden. [Ap>
plause in the galleries.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair is
obliged to say that repetition of the Of
tense from the galleries must be followed by
an order for the clearance of the galleries
forthwith. The Chair gives this notice to
| all persons occupying seats in the galleries
on the assumed authority and direction of
the Senate itself. -.... ..
MIR. Douglas: do not say that Mr..
Yancey and his associates at Charlest0 on
mean disunion. have no authority for
saying any more than appears in the publ
cation OF his matured plan. Sir, it was said
with truth that the order of battle issued at
Cerro Gordo by General Scott day before
the battle, was a complete history of the
triumph after the battle was over, so perfect
were his arrangements, so exact was the
compliance with his orders. The pro,
gramme of Mr.. Yancey, published two years
ago, is truthful history of the secession
movement at Charleston. l have not the
slightest idea that all those who came under
his influence in maturing his measures, con-
CURED in the ends to which these measures
inevitably led; but what were Mr.. Yanceys
measures? He proposed to insist upon a
platform identical in every feature with the
caucus resolutions which we are now asked
to adopt. The Yancey platform at Charles
ton, known as the majority report from the
committee on resolutions, in substance and
spirit and legal effect, was the same as the
Senate caucus resolutions; the same as the
resolutions now under discussion, and upon
which the Senate is called upon to vote.
do not suppose that any gentleman adj
vocating this platform in the Senate, means
or desires disunion. acquit each and every
man of such a purpose; but believe, in my
conscience, that such platform of princi-
pies, insisted upon, will lead directly and in
| evitably to a dissolution of the Union. This
platform demands congressional Intervention
for slavery in the Territories in certain
events. What are these events? In the
event that the people Of Territory do not
want slavery, and will not provide by law
for its introduction and protection, and that
fact shall be ascertained judicially, then
Congress is to pledge itself to pass laws to
force the Territories to have it. Is this the
Intervention to which the Democratic
party pledged itself at Baltimore and Gin
cinnati? So long as the people Of Terri
tory want slavery, and say so in their legis.
lation, the advocates of the CAUCUS platform
are willing to let them have it, and to act
upon the principle that Congress shall not
interfere. They are for interference so
long as the people want slavery, so long as
they will provide by law for its introduce
ton and protection; but the moment the
people say they do not want it, and will not
have it, then Congress must intervene and
force the institution on an unwilling people.
On the other hand, the Republican party is
also for non-intervention in certain contin-
gencies. The Republicans are for non-in.
PREVENTION just so long as the people Of the
Territories do not want slavery, and say SO
by their laws. So long as the people of q
Territory prohibit slavery, the AbolitionistE
are for non-intervention, and will not inter.
fere at all; but whenever the people of the
Territories say by their legislation that they
do want it, and provide by law for its intro
duction and protection, then the Republi.
cans are for intervening and for depriving
them of it. Each of you is for Intervention
for your own section, and against it wher
non intervention operates for your section
There is no difference in principle between
Intervention north and intervention south
Each asserts the power and duty of the Fed
eral Government to force institutions upor
an unwilling people. Each denies the right
OF self government to the people of the Ter.
ritory over their internal and domestic con.
Germs. Each appeals to the passions, pre-.
JUDGES, and ambition of his own section
against the peace and harmony of the whole
country. ...
Sir, let this doctrine of Intervention Nortl
and Intervention South become the rallyine
point of two great parties, and you will fint
that you have two sectional parties, dividet
by that line that separates the free from tn
slaveholding States. Whenever this shall
become the doctrine of the two parties, yol
will find southern Intervention party fo
slavery, and northern Intervention part,
against slavery; and then will come the sir
repressible conflict" of which we have hear'
so much. We have had an illustration Q
what kind of Intervention you will get when
ever you recognize the right of Congress tt
intervene on this subject. The House o
Representatives sent US bill, the other day
repeating the slave code which was unani
mousy adopted by the Legislature of New