Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-06-13


doctrine of the Democratic party on this question
in the following clear and strong language, in
speech he made in Lexington, KY, in June, 1906:
upon the distractIng question OF domestic sia-
verv their position is clear. The whole power OF
the Democratic organization is pledged to the ioi-
lowing propositlons That Congress shall not IN
tervene upon this subject in the States, in the Terri
tories or in the District of Columbia; that the peo-
pie of each Territory shall determine the question
for themselves and be admitted into the Union upon
footing of perfect equality with the orgna, STATES
without discrimination on account OF the aiioMaice
or prohibition of slavery"
Yet how many of those who Mould crucVy Doug
las for avowing just such sentiments are reauy "
shout for Breckenridge!
But again. You all know that Gen. 10 Lane has
been prominent candidate for the Presidency. In
a speech made at Concord n. H., in September,
1855, in defending the NebraSkaKansas act he said,
with a soldiers boldness:
There is nothing in the law. gentlemen, but
what every enlightened American heart should ap-
prove The idea incorporated in the kansas-Ne-
braska bill is the true American principle; tor the
bill does not establish prohibit slavery, but leaves
the people of these Territories perfectly free to reg
ulate their own local affairs in their own way. is
there any man who can object to that idea! Is
there any American citizen who can oppose that
principle?
Gentlemen, | desire to say to you that the princi-
pie incorporated into the Kansas Nebraska bill is
the very principle in defence Of which your forefa
theirs entered into the service of their country in
the revolutionary war; for the American colonies,
two years previous to the Declaration of lndepen-
dence, asserted this same principle we now find IN
corporated in the Kansas Nebraska bill "
Again: Mr. Chase, of Ohio moved to amend the
amendment to the Nebraska Kansas bill (Which
have quoted) by adding, after the word Consttn-
tion the following words: "under which the peo-
pie shall have the right to ercl"de sldrerg." Mr.
IL. g
the alternative, "or to dllOD sldrHy." He MR.
Chase declined to receive it. Mr.. Badger opposed
the amendment with much earnestnesS, upon the
ground that its adoption would be "distinct legis-
lative explanation that so far slavery is concern
ed, they (the people, shall have the right. under
this bill to act only for the exclusion Of slarery"
Mr. Cass said at did not give the right Of govern
ment to the people" Mr.. Badger replied-"It I'M
quesionaby does not give the right which this bill
proposes to give then to regulate things for them
selres Mr.. President, the matter is clear. Some
of us think the distinguished Senator from Michi
gan (ir Cass) is of opinion that to the people OF
the territory alone belongs this power. Now, do
not agree with him. l think with the Honorable
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Petit that Congress
has plenary power of government to legiSlate over
these territories But with regard to that question
slavery we have agreed-some of us because we
thought it the only right mode, and some of us be-
cause we think it right mode and, under existing
circumstances. the preferable mode, TO confer this
pOrer upon the people Of the Territories"
Now, can such facts and such language be miSun
derstood? Is not their meaning too plain for cavil?
At another time during the same debate, Mr.
Badger used these words: THE language of the
bill, amended on motion of the Chairman OF the
Committee Territories (Mr DourlaS) is full
complete, and ample, gising the people Of these Ter
ritOries HToTgh their g0rerRmeRfs tie unrestricted
and unqualified right to decide upon ALL their do
nestle rPilfIOHS SLAVERY
1t IS hardly possible for clearer and stronger Ian
guage to be used And vet this is not clearer
stronger than the exposition of the meaning Of the
act given BY many Southern Senator's and Repre-
sentatives who engaged in the discussion. wish
had time to read other extracts all going to sustain
the construction placed on it by Senator Douglas.
NOn-interrentiOn has been recognized aS the doc
trne of both parties at the South for the last ten
years. The whole history of her political conven-
lions and legislatures proves it beyond all question
1t has been regarded the very Sheet-anchor of our
peace and safety. He who opposed it or gave it a
cold and ungenerOnS support was put down as worse
than Turk or infidel. His political coffin was at
once ordered
And pray what are we now required to do, under
threat that if it is not done the Democratic party
shall be broken up and those at the South who OPP
pose the demand shall be held up traitors to their
section /? Why, when there is but one territory in
which slavery can possibly eXiSt,-and when that
territory has already adopted slavery-when there
is only the remOtest probability of acquiring addi-
hOnal slave territory-when have not slaves
enough by millions to till the lands we now possess
we most arrogantly required to abandon the pO-
son we have held for the last ten ycars-to violate
the pghted faith of both parties at the South to
each other, to abandon Northern friends who
have heretofore confidcd in us and go back to the
doctrine Of Congressional intervention on the sub
ject Of slavery in the territories. to demand of
/ Congress territorial sure code The doctrine is.
in my judgment, fraught with the greatest injury
to the South | shall not cease to oppose and de-
nounce it.
With non-intervention by Congress, with slavery
in the Territories, and the bred Scott decision,
what more does the South want? What more does
she need? Who is to be benefited by this aglta-
ton of the territorial slave code doctrine? Are
there any territories that require-hat need such
code? Is the principle of any prdctical mpor.
lance? Is there any necessity that it should he
pressed even to the disruption of the Democratic
party-Securing thereby the election of black Re
publican to the Presidency?
The StdtUs-the condition Of the territories rs 10
slavery, is fixed by mmutable lar which renders
futile all human enactments, either for its establish
ment or prohibition. Wherever from soil and eli
mate slavery can be made profitable ii nil 90 and he
protected, and wherever it would be improbable or
worthless, no human enGctments Gun torce IT, Why
then, exhaust our energies a mere impracticable
! issue? Does any man fancy that the issue which
is presented by the black Republican party, is to I've
fought over the territOries' Is that the lire
preSsble conflict" to which Seward and his reckless
followers have challenged us? No, by no MEANS
Far from it. Their aim is wider, deeper-far more
| dangerous.
The blow they are aiming is far more vital II
seek not to wound the extremites only it strikes at
the heart The is applied, not to the branches,
but to the root of the tree. 1t is blow aimed at
| our very hearths-at our domestic rights-at our
peace and safety The exclusion from the Union
of any other slave Statethe abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia-the Introduction Of the
slave trade between the States-the repeal of the
fugitive slave law-the extinction, total-entire
extinction of slavery throughout the Union-by leg
islaon, if possibility force and bloodshed if nee.
essary-are not these the inevitable purposes and
ends Of their doctrines-the momentous issues to