Daily national Democrat., 1861-01-11
A Grand Mistake,

and that the people OF the Territories should
mould their own institutions Hon J. W.
Denver said in his letter, in the opening fthe
canvass:
"The Territorial question out Of which
have sprung all the present existing ditieren-
ccs in the Democratic party, is one which, in
my opinion, ought never to have been brot
into the politics of this State, for it does not
in any way affect our rights either directly or
Indirectly The Compromise Measures of
1880 were adopted 10y Congress for the pur-
pose Of driving the discussions on the slavery
question out OF the national councils. After
this the doctrine of ojt-jaterueHtica was adj
vocated all over the country, North and
South, the more ultra aboijtjoniStS and South
crH secessionists only obiecting to it, In 1854,
when a bill was pending in Congress to pro-
vide for the organization of the Territories of
Nebraska and Kansas, all the Southern Sena
tors with the exception of Mr. Bell, of Ten
nessee, and Mr. Houston, of Texas insisted
that this doctrine should be applied in all its
force and Vigor, and in order TO do this they
demanded and obtained the repeal of the
! Missouri Compromise. These demands were
conceded by the great mass Of the Northern
! Democracy, because they believed them Just
and equitable and consistent with the letter
and spirit of the Federal Constitution Two
! years afterwards, in 1886, the Democratic
National Convention which assembled at Gin.
| cinnati made this doctrine the chief plank in
their platform, and that was the great issue
involved in the contest Of that year, which
terminated in the election of Mr. Buchanan
to the Presidency; the Democracy every
where advocatiOng non Intervention by Con-
gress in the domestic affairs of the Territories,
and the Republicans taking the opposite
grounds. The success of the Democracy, it
was hoped, had effected final settlement Of
this veXed question, although it was not to
be expected that differences OF opinion would
not arise in its application. Southern states
men differed widely among themselves in
their views as TO the powers conferred on the
Territorial Legislatures by the Nebraska
Kansas Act but it was generally agreed that
| all such questions should be submitted to the
J Courts for settlement as Hey might arise"
"Since the final action of Congress in 1854
on the Territorial question. the Democratic
members have steadily refused To interfere IN
these matters, and no longer ago than last
June, with Mr.. Green, of Missouri, at their
head, they ignored all action in regard either
to the laws of New Mexico for the protection
of slavery, or the laws of Kansas for its abo-
lition
"Under this state of facts, then, it matters
very little what differences of opinion indi-
yiduals outside of the Territories may enter
tain as to the powers conferred by the Kan
sas Nebraska Act. All such differences, if
they contain anything practical, are suscepti-
ble of solution by the Federal Courts aud
if they do not involve anything practical
they are unworthy of notice"
The whole tenor of the foregoing is for
Non-Intervention, and thoroughly agrees
with Douglas, that, whatever differences of
opinion may exist regarding the abstract
question of the precise power which Terri
torial Legislature possesses over slavery, it is
a matter for the Courts to determine, and
that Congressional Intervention is not neces-
sary.
Hon. s. w. Inge, in a similar declaration Of
his sentiments, upon abandoning Buchanan,
after the refusal of the latter to supp ort the
regular nominee of the party, Stephen A.
Douglass most emphaticaly endorsed the
principles of the platform upon which Judge
Douglas was nominated. Said he, in his let
ter of August 10th:
"The only legitimate Object Of party organi.
zation is TO sustain principles in which we
believe, and as the two rival candidates nomi
mated at Baltimore represent different and
antagonistic principles, we have TO be gov
erned in our elections by the principles they
represent, and not by the forms that were
observed in their nominations.
This difference in principles is radical
clear and well defined. Douglas maintains
the time-honored Democratic doctrine of nom
intervention by Congress with slavery in the
Territories; Brecknridge the anti Democratic
heresy of Congressional Intervention for the
| protection of slavery in the Territories. One
Is Democratic, the other is anti Democratic
one is national, the other sectional. Douglas
faithfully and consistently represents a prin
cFle of policy established into the Democratic
creed in 1913, which has never since been
questioned or disturbed until the present day,
and the practical efficacy of which has been
demonstrated by experience. Breckenridge
represents mischievous, sectional principle
solemnly abandoned by the South in 1850,
and demonstrated by history to be fraught
with fatal evils to the harmony and perpetu-
ity of the Union. From 1920 to 1850. the
practice of Congress was to intervene on this
subject First the spirit of compromise ami
mated that Intervention, as in the case of the
Louisiana Territory in 1920; afterwards, as
the anti-slavery fanaticism swelled into a
great political power in the free States, the
national spirit OF compromise was suifocated,
and that of a rapacious sectional monopoly
animated the Intervention of Congress, as in
the case of the Wilmot Proviso in 1916. 1t
then became apparent that the future action
OF Congress would be a struggle between hos
tile sections, constantly recurring and never
ending, except in the overthrow of the Re
public. The only hope of peace to the coun-
try and stability to the Union was in the
transfer of the subject, with the whole power
of Congress over it, to the people of the Ter
ritores. They can determine it without diff
Guilty except in case of foreign interference.
out of which all the troubles arose in Kansas
they ought to determine it because it is pecu-
liarly a question Of local concern; and more
than all, they will determine it in every case,
because they have over it practical power
which will mockingly defy the theoretical
sovereignty of Congress. | hold this doctrine
of territorial control over slavery to be po-
litical necessity, without which neither ma
tiona parties nor the Union can long exist.
How illustrative of this is the present condi-
lion of the country? Lincoln is for Con-
gressional Intervention to exclude, and Breck-
inrdge to protect, slavery, in all the Terri
tories of the Union, without reference to soil
climate, or the will of the people interested.
One is at the head of Northern sectional.
the other Southern sectional. party and it
is claimed by their friends that they will be
sustained by majorities in their respective
sections. My hope and confidence is that the
patriotic masses of both sections are yet loyal
to the Union, and will sustain Douglas and