Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-07-24


r was finally unsuccessful because Of the bad con-
luet of this trading combination that would never
again make an effort TO unite the party with sucn
material in it. That effort at union would have
been crowned with complete success but for them,
for the ranks of the party had closed up, and the
masses hailed a deliVerance from internal division
and strife as proud day in their eountrys histo-
ry But they have torn open again its wounds 10
subserYe their own selfish schemes, and now let d.
vision be the order of the day until these faihess
"polItcal gamblers" driven without the pale OF
the Democratic Party forever. SO totally annorreu
as they are that we shallsOoner attain success WIN
out than with them ard we have proved now 10
the satisfaction of all, how vain the attempt LOT
marty to repose upon such rotten foundations, and
hereafter their power will not be courted nor their
necessities rewarded by Democratic Admnstra-
tions No | shall hereafter make no efforts lof
union where they are to be recognized, but war
uDon any faction under their treAcherous rule, and
nothing but faction viii follow their lead
s.Tuice have sought Clan AIpine's glen
In peAce but when come again,
come with banner, brand and DOW
Asleader seeks his mortal foe.
[Applause.l
Nox-1N4ERvENrIoS-s qUATrER SOVEREIGNTY.
Much has heen said upon the subjects of aon-inter,
uention and sguder sovereignty as 1t Is termed ana
there has been much more SAID upon them than has
been understood by those who have said 1t. And 1t
would be well for the political magpies, who CHATTER
40 Humanity on the subject to learn their lesson be-
fore they pirate it. lLaughter.l The two princi-
pies which really have no relation to each other,
and are entirely different, have been strangely ana
u,pardonablv confounded; but will state the true
definitions of each separately. Non-nterventlon
means that there should be no Intervention to extena
or prohibit slavery in the Territories but that the
people of the States and the territories shoud DC
left while Territory, to ENJOY just such rights as
TO CARRYING their slaves with them vixen removing
into the Territories exclusion theretrom, as 1t
should be held by the Courts belonged to them.
Squatter Sovereignty claims the sovereign right OF
the people of Territory to exclude the ihtroduc-
ton of slavery into the Territory, by hostile Terri
toria legislation regardless OF the construction given
By the Constitution by the decisions OF the supreme
Court Before the bred Scott decision this was an
open question: since that decision 1t is so no longer
/ The difference Is plainly this-nonnterventlon by
| Congress and qualified Popular Sovereignty pro-
posed such Territorial legislation as should be IN
/ Difference to- subject to- and in harmony with the
decisions of the Supreme Court upon the great ues
/ ton Squatter Sovereignty defes the authority OF
the Courts and asserts the power of the Territorial
Legislature to exclude slavery from the Territory
| by law. absolutely regardless of the construction
given to the Constitution by the Courts
Mr. DIcKSsoX's RESOLUTIONS OF lS47, IN THE SENATE,
| AND Mr.. CAIHoUN's VIEWS.
1t has often been said with truth that was the
first to introduce the principle OF non-interyenEon
and qualified popular sovereignty into Congress, Tor
the government of the Territories. When the doc
trine has been regarded with disfavOr it has been
assigned to me-but when it has been greeted with
popular applause it has had numerous claimants
1t has sometimes been said, but enormously, that
was an advocate if not the author, OF the doctrine
of sduatter sovereignty. was, and am, an advocate
of non-intervention with qualified popular sover
eighty: that is with the right of the people to legs
! late in harmony with the Constitution for their do
nestle government. | never was an advocate for
or believer in, the doctrine of squatter sovereign
tv and hold it to be out and out absurdly, Tor
makes the laws of Territorial Legislature to over
I ride the Constitution of the United States
The resolutions which introduced in 1917, pro
posing non-interYentOn in the Territories and sug
! costing the principle of popular sovereignty IN
e qualified FORM proposed, as shown by the speech
which followed their introduction, that the terrific
rial legislation should keep in view such construc
ton as should be given to the Constitution by th
Supreme Court, and legislste in harmony with Ant
i in declaratory obedience TO II. They were neVe
e brought to a vote because practical measures In
volving the precise question, came under consider
alton soon after their Introduction, and for no othe
> reason.
e In 1913 Mr. Calhoun myself. and others, wer
a upon the committee charged with BILL known a
C the Clayton Compromise. proposed and Mr.. Cal
houn assented that the bill should be framed upon tn
principle of non-interventon, and 1t was so frame
t and so passed the Senate but was the close
t. the session. laid the table il the House of Repre-
n sentatIves The only difference between Mr.. Ca
n houn and myself upon the subject then or at an
5 other time was this: he proposed that the bi
should recognize, in decaratOry form, the right
|
Territories with their property, slave propert
d included, and there be protected. WlthOu
IS out affirming denying his position proposed,
it was an unsettled question, and strictly beionge
o to the judiciary to leave II to be decided by tn
Y, Courts To which he readily assented, remarkln
that the South had such entire confidence iii the pr
sition that they willing 10 stand upon nonli
IS Prevention and await judicial construction OF I'll
Constitution and of their rights in the Terrltorle
. The position of Mr.. Calhoun has since been full
cd hy bred
u cisOn.
COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.
The compromise measures of 1850 were base
. upon the same nonLnterventon idea, and While the
- were under discussion the Senate of the Unite
e States had the honor to state my position there
y a speech upon the floor. follows
snow Sir wish to say once for ALL that II Is M
y my intention either directly indirectly, TO favo
bv voice or vote the extension of slavery, or the r
stricton of slavery in the Territories by Congress
or any interference with the subject whatever. n,
~ am Influenced in this conclusion by the local law
of the Territory in question, either natural or art
n | ficial-the laws of nature or the laws OF maj
u AMI for all the purposes of the present action,
= will not inquire what they in either respect
~ will stand upon the true principles of non-interye
~ ton in the broadcast possible sense, for nonlnterve
toms sake to uphold the fundamental principles
= freedom, and for no other reason, and VIII leaN
= the people of the Territories and of the States
r such rights and privileges are theirs under Il
:; Constitution ard laws Of the United States, wit
~ out addition to or diminution from such rights
- the action of Congress"
n KANSAS AND NEBRASKA BILL
n The Kansas and Nebraska BILL except in its di
to turbance of the Missouri line contained no new pri
n. cipe whatever, but copied the same non interve
nd ton principle which had been recognized by Co
ce gress and awaited the judicial construction OF II
oil Constitution. 800.
nd THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION
ed After the passage of all these measures, came Il
OF bred Scott decision by the Supreme Court of Il
We United States pronounced, after unusual labor al
VI elaboration. constituting the Constitution and Il
SO rights of citizens of States in the Territories, as
II Calhoun and other Southern statesmen had conten
~ ed and thus settling the question forever for
IN those who propose to abide by the Constitution
y laws, The substance of the DECISION Was this;
r. Tbe Territory thus acquired il acquired by the people
the United their and equal benefit thrOu
the regent trustehe Federal GoYernmont Congress
st exercise power the rights Of person property Of CT
Cove nment and the citizens whenever the Territory
opened both with their respective rig
defined and limited by the Constitution Congress
prohibit the citizens Of any particular State States frC
nd taking their home there while it permits citizens OF OH
rt States to do Nor haI 1t right give privileges to one c
people which refuses another The Territory
equal and common benefit and to it must
| open to all, upon equal and the sane terms.
he Every citizen has right to take with him into the Terrific
article Of property which the Constitution OF the Unit
States recognizes property The Constitution OF the oil
d States recognizes slaves ard pledges the Fede
Government to protect it, and Congress can not exercise
or authority over property Of that description than
constutlOnaly property any oher
as Of Congress. therefore, prohibiting citizen Of the Unit
taking with him slaves when he the
ed rory question reside Of authority priv
property which warranted by the Constitution, and the
OF the plaintiff by bis to that Territory
10 no title to freedom"
"a Now, if all had acquesced in this decision Iii
" good citizens-had yielded willing and cheerful 4
10 sent and obedience to it authentic constructs
rs of the fundamental law, by the highest tribunal
" question of slavery in the Territories would ha
On been at rest, and the Democratic party would ha
ne been its way rejoicing But every kind of mea
rs was resorted to to evade it. Rampant AbOitoniSl
M manly than its accomplices in mischief, open
H denounced 1t and deed it. it wont to do all leg
u obstacles to the cOnsummation Of its own diste
= pered idea emagOguism inflated itsef-fanatlcls
n foamed, and trimming cowardiee shrunk around
u and insisted that the question not decded-a
all these combined together sought to deny to the
zens of the slave States the benefits of the decisio
ne either in theory practice.
III repeat the South were satisfied with non-intt
l. Yention awaiting in good faith the decision of t
Courts before this adjudication since the decsio
they would have been satisfied with noninterventio
vi and the acknowledgment and practical execution
= $500 L 4