American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1860-02-16

tOiu W Do ZulttphuJ tpHIsWnR rne Mp1st
feared WAS thai tinjd sop,bsrp men
would fali back"-tbat e, DougIss was
afraid tbatthe sout6 would ndta 90 10 sbe
extent Of demanding its Constitutional
rights. What those rights we're In the
est NATION Of Douglas (SoutheED present
adSn) At that time, ia seen a few words
funherslohg. IN another passsge which
the Enquiter, with pains tSking, EXCLUDES
from It's columns. aHe, { iDOugiss) de-
mands not ONLY the use and enjoyment OF
the common territory fot their (the South
10 which QIllman had ju.t said DSuglss
WAS true porp-riy, But INSISTS rFoS ITsl
PROTECTION THERE" That IS The Save
Code, dortrine--olt and out, and the En-
quirer Knows the fact foll well. So I, ap-
pears that DoGglss was 10 1866 cop6der>
italy promising the South a Slave Code,
for The protection Of tl,eir property 10 tue
common territories. thing which be in
sisted upon which ia strong l,nguage)
10 a'short cobvtrsa.ion with Gsu.Q .Quitnsn
The questi Il arises Whether he is no dong
tbs same thing justDow. Tshs not work.
ing shd stru Cling for the Charlss;on nom
iUauon With the sane desperation and
disregard Of such scruplys as foncrsble
men have, that he worked aud Struggled
for the CiDcinnsii nomination? Gem
Qaitman, after, deciariu that Douglas not
only demanded the use and enjoyment Of
tie common territory for the use. Of the
owners Of slaves, but insisted upon The
protection ofslavs property in the terrific
riss. added that ihe sopth was indsbied
to Doug sl.s for the Kansas Bill--B aiah 70
Qqitmsn's eye msFely threw down a bar
risr which hs1 bseh erected sgsinat tht
extension ofSlavery-+and the Old hero
added inaths simplicity of his hsaIt aud
The frankn4ss, Of his pen, writing 10 an Oh
fliend, that Douglas was fhe. trus Eepre
4 sehi4,iveo Of thi5 principle What prib'
cipIe? Clearly that of The protection o
I Slavery IN the territories. Andthe word,
follow: lind opposes the tie ebosiHaBt
lpriscipls @, Sqnaler SOvreisntg." NJ
7 wonder the Enquirer omitted that sentence
I Why il Is sharper than serpent's tooth
7 Itpeisces Ike an atrcw and rs6s les w
Y poison Douglas - tue uues Representa-
ttigr Of the prilsipsls OF the protection Q
! Slave pIopeIty in The territoies, and op
= poses tfs sbominrbIs prleiple ofSqusitp
' SoVeIeigntyi Et? Now let US put III
pointsof the Qahmsn letter together an
{. see what We, have. Let it be remem bers
the letter was wtiteD just wbeD the note
OF preparation Tor the Cinpicnsti Conven
ton were heard 10 TIE Southwest. O
\ the q3a Of Ma ch, e6e.s at W@hiagton
! Gen Quitman had short coovefsatie
: with Douglas, ,snd the resultwas. he wrol
frank letter to sn oil friend in Mississpp
/ giving the substance Of the conversation
and expressing in SO many words prefe
encs Tor his intefloeuior for the Presidenc'
: Thereasons dor this preference he give
Douglas was afraid the timid men OF Ii
South would fall back, and he demsnGe
that the South should ugs and enjoy II
common territory, sud be Insisted lh
protection should be afforded slave propsl
ty in the common territory; he was II
J true representative Of this principle al
u opposed o the sbominahle principle
: Squatter Sovereignty. What the prime
, pie Of squqlter Sovereignty was. as unds
: stood BY Quitmsn and evidently express'
: in his dialogue with Douglas, appes
+ perfectly defined. The sbominable pri
cipal which Douglas opposed--the anita
onism of Which he truly tepresented--w
that the people of territory cou
= exclude or abolish slsvery--in short Il
' "0red principle OF Popular Sovereignty
as preached IN the North as the princip
n which Douglas is the tepresent4li
man, Aud new having secured in i
r North as the champion Of the great pr nc
e pie of Popular Sovereign a very rpspec
able proportion OF the delegates fro
e that secrion TO the Charleston Cohyenti
l'--a-le:ter is published ia The South derla
a ing him opposed to the sbop.inable princiF
1oi SquGtter Sovereifnty--Squatter sov
regnty sSuBdeIslood at the South al
t Popular Sovereignty as defined at t
N North bting Identical Could the dupli
ity Of psrtizan desperNdoes have a no
d giRring illustration? Yes. We fnd ID
IS most f4grant exanp pie Of polilios trieSe
It on record in the columns Of the Enquir
h insthe nutlslion Of Quitman's letter al
the pretended enforcement thereof. 10