Year: 1859

B. F. Washington has written most mpor-
tant and very able letter relative to the doctrine
of slave code for the Territories. He gives that
Interpretation to the Kansas Nebraska bill
which the Courier has steadily contended for
holds that Congress has no right to legslate
for or against slavery in the Territories-and re-
commends the Convention to ignore the ques-
ton. For uttering these same views we have
quite frequently had our Democracy doubted in
this quarter, by men who know as little of DEM
ocracy as they do of the doctrines of the Koran.
We regret that we cannot publish this document
entire at present.


He admits athat the design of the Kansas-Ne-
braska law was, thereafter, to exclude the SUBJ
ject of slavery in the Territories from the halls
of ofCopgress, and leave it with the people imme-
diately interested, to regulate in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution of the United
Statesn


In reference to the doctrine of Brown, Davis,
and others, that it is the duty of Congress to fur
nish slave code for the Territories in a certain
contingency, he says:


do not hesitate to say that am opposed to
Congressional intery ention with slavery in the
Territories, either for protection or otherwise. |
am opposed to it because,


First, such legislation is not demanded by any
existing or probable emergency. In Kansas, the
only Territory where the friends of Intervention
could with color of justice demand it, its social
status as respects slavery is definitely settled
The sentiment of its people is most emphatcally
against 1T. For Congress to interfere for its
protection by positive enactment could result in
10 possible good to the south, and at best a most
insignificant and short lived advantage to the
few holding slaves there.


Secondly, because the Democratic party is
solemnly pledged to the doctrine of non-inter-


Thirdly, because it would result in farther
agitation of the slavery question. The Demo-
cratic party is pledged to resist all attempts at
renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation
OF the slavery question, under achdteuer shape or
color the attempt may be made" There
is no excuse or justification, in my opinion, for
farther agitation at this time. The south has
every thing that it has right to demand. The
north r;st >, has . surrendered nothing that it had


Fonrthly, because it would afford noisy DEM
agogues and unprincinled agitators q fruitful
theme for defamation. x *1


Whilst, however, am opposed to Congress
.slonal Intervention in behalf of slavery in the
Territories, do not for moment ina CINE that
subscribe to the heresy taught by the would be
champions of popular sovereignty, that terri
torial legislature has the right to exclude it.
The assertion of such doctrine is high-awism
an its most Objectionable Specification.


From what have written you will not be at
a loss to determine my views as to the proper
course for the Democratic Convention to pursue
Let II ignore the entire question.
Let the Convention Reuter- its great prnci-
pie-NoN-AGITATIoN-NoN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
LAR SOVEREIGNTY IN sUBoRDINATIoN TO THE Con-
sTITUTIoN. By faithfully adharing to these we
have nothing to fear. The thorough discussion
OF slavery in recent years has inculcated much
more rational view of the subject in all sections.
The demagogue's game is well nigh played out.
The people are becoming disgusted with this
incessant cry of niger! p They wish to hear
and talk about something else. Let the party
resolutely set its face against the incorporation
into its platform of any new questions of an in
hammatory character. would dodge no legit-
innate issue. That is not characteristic of the
democracy. They have never yet failed to show
their hands upon any great question involving
national legislation. | am unwilling, however,
TO have illegitimate and speculative issues man.
ufactured for and thrust upon us either by our
open enemies or pretended friends.