Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-10-03

great democratic principles have always been visited
upon men apd parties who forget the paramount du.
ty to their country. But, although the columns OF
the democracy as well as the Union men 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 win make
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 Great ap-
plause
Why, men of this Union, are we called upon now
to change the whole policy OF tins country, as !
have imperfectly traced it, from the purchase OF
Louisiana to the present time-that policy by which
we have gone on expanding our territory and letting
the negro alone-simply saying to the Southern
men, "There is territory-if you insist upon your
right 20 and try your negro there; if you can make
money with him there, you will keep him there-if
not, you will be glad enough to get rid Of him-'f
he doesn't run away from you you will have to run
away from bim?" 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, against the morality and
religious sense of the Southern men. 1t is pharisai
cal hypocrisy but will not 90 into that subject
it comes rather too near home to us all.
NoN-INrERvENTIoN VS.. sQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. :,
And now will you indulge me further in taking d
needlessy divide the democracy on these rather tho
oretical propositions of intervention and squat
ter sovereignty We have divided on the construc
ton of a 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 an 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 reason? "Do you
mean squattcr sovereignty, or not" they asked, by
that PLATFORM" A portion of the Convention re-
fused to answer and then came a severance Anoth-
err 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 man of the South, owning property, should
have the same right to go, with his property, into
the common Territories of the country that man
owning property at the North has to 90 there with
his property and that both equally entitled to
protection under the Constitution" That is the
whole explanation of the Cincinnati platform; and
it not fair to make it? Let us see how the two
candidates understand it.
The country has witnessed in this canvass what
has rarely occurred before for the Pres
iiency 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
am sorry to have to say that such able and brave
champions of the democracy Breckenridge and
Douglas should be opponents. Such a state Of
things should never have existed, and should not
exist longer but there the fact stands, and must
deal with it as it is Mr.. Douglas saws 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 reason the
split was made at Baltimore.
That, allow me to say is great mistake. The
national democracy which supports Mr.. Breckn
ridge, and Mr.. Breckenridge himself AFFIRM adhere
to- and maintain the doctrine of "non-interterence
with slavery in the Territories as the cornerstone
of their territorial policy.
The heresy of the squatter sovereignty dogma
consists in thS-that it is only halfway non-nter
vention, and makes non-intervcnton 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 as a sovereign Citizens of the South may &C
with their slave property into the Territories ir
spite Of all the power of Congress to prohibit, but
the territorial legislature may disfranchse the slave
holder and take away his property as soon as hi
sgets there.
That is the dogma which Mr.. Breckenridge con
demns His doctrine of non-intervention is entir,
aud complete-that neither Congress nor the Terri
tory shall intervene to impair o destroy the equa
rights Of the States in the common territory. Ths
is his precise language" Hands off the whole sub
ject of slavery by the federal government, excep
Tor one or two protective purposes mentioned in tn
Constitution-the equal right of sections in tn
common territory. and the absolute power of eact
new State to settle the question in its constitution.
i "These" he adds, "are my doctrines .and those o
our platform-and. what is more, they are the doc
trines of the Constitution"
Now is not this open and square, manly ant
above all misconstruction? Congress shall not in
tervene to prohibit or destroy-the Territory shal
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 CT.
which our gallant leader has given the country q
"The Constitution and the Equality of the States
Now, then,
IS SLAVE LABOR PROPERTY?
Yes, says the Constitution; yes, says the Suprem
Court. We stand upon that constitutional fact
Slave labor in fifteen States of this Union is pr0pe,
ty. 1t was property in every State in the Unio
when the Constitution was formed and by tina
Constitution was allowed to be imported as proper
ty, subject to duties for twenty years by each Stat
that chose to hold such property. Yes, sir, tn
trade in slaves as property was made lawful CON
merce for twenty years by the votes of Massacha
sets, Connecticut and Ne,o Hampshire against tn
protest of Virginia. Those three States voted wit
Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Georges
in the atfirmative-Virginia Delaware, Pennsylva
mia, and New Jersey in the negat:ve-7 to T.
And this property acquired and legalized ur
der the Constitution has not ceased to be property
any one of the States of this Union, only by som
. Constitution or State law abolish ing it.
1t is property in the labor of the slave, not in tn
man hmsslfthere is no such thing as property
man, permitted by any Southern law that exists
it is property in the labor of the man. There
the distinction; and that fact may do away with
good deal Of the sentmentaity about property i
men," You have property in horses or oxen, an
! may kill them, and nobody say you nay. Is ther
any such property in man. in any State Of the Union
| No fhoro - -, .