Year: 1860

We have heard it in the social circle, in tie
forum, on the hustings and in the halls of legis-


ation. The newspapers have literally groaned
with dissertations on it. Pamphlets have been
published for and against the respective sides.
Congress has spent months in its discussion, and
may spend as many years as they have months,
without arriving at any more definite or salts
factory conclusion in relation to it than Milton's
perplexcd spirits did upon the abstrusc questions
on which they held such high and prolonged
debate when they reasoned


s'Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate
Fixed fate free will, foreknowledgc, absolute,
| And found no end i'll wandering mazes LOST


1t Is not my purpose now to enter the list of
these disputants. My own opinions. upon the
subject are known and it is equally known that
this difference of opinion or construction is no
new thing in the history of this subject Those
who hold the doctrine chat the people of the
Territories: according to the great principles of
self-government, under the Constitution of the
United States, can exclude slavery by Ierrito-
rial law, and regulate slave property as all other


property, held the same views they now do


when we agreed with them to stand on those


terms. This fact is also historical. The South


held that under the Constitution the Territorial


Legislatures could not exclude slavery-that this


required act of sovereignty to do. Some gentle


men of the North held, as they now do that the


Territorial Legislatures could control slave pro-


perty as absolutely as they could any other kind


of property, and by system of laws could vir-


tually exclude 7ktvery from amongst them, .Or
prevent its Introduction if they chose,


That point of difference it was agreed. by


both Sides to leave to the courts to settle. There


was no cheat, or swindle, or fraud, or double


dealing in it. 1t was fair, honorable, and


constitutional adjustment Of the difference. No


assertion or declaration by Congress, one way


or theaother, could hive affected the question in


the least degree ). .forf the people, according to


s:the great principles If self-governmeut" under


the Constitution, have the right contended for


by those who espouse tsat side Of. the argument.
tthea Congress could DO ana cannot deprive
Hoes not have, the pasis to exciude slavery
from a Territory, as tbGse on Our side contended
and still contend they have not, then they could
not and did not confer it upon tue Territorial
Legislatures We Of the South held that Con-
grcss had not the pp.yer to exclude, and could
not delegate power5hey did not possess-also
that the people had not the power to exclude
under the Constitution and therefore>t the mutu-
al agreement waste take the subject out of Con-
gress, and leave tie question Of the power Of the
people where the Constitution had placed it
with the courts This is the whole of it. The
question in Dispute is a judicial one. and no aet'
of Congress, llor .any resolution Of any, party
convention can ilf .ny way AFFECT it, u.ilsss we
first abandon the f,jsition of nom ute-vention
by Congress.


But it seems exceedingly strange to me that
the people of the South should, at .his late day,
begin to find fault with this Northern construc-
tor, as,t is ternled-especially since the deci-
SIGN of TIA Supreme Court in the case of bred
Ssott. ms connexion | may be permitted
to: say tll4t have read with deep interest the
teJates of the Charleston Convention, aud par
ticulaitty tie able, logical, and eloquent speech
of the Hon. VIM. l.. Yancey, of Alabama. 1t
was decidedly the strongest argument ! have
seen on lis side Of the question. But its great
est power was shown in its complete answer to
itself Never did a man. with greater clcarness,
demonstrate that 'squattter Sovereignty, the
bugbear OF the day, is not in the Kansas bill,
all that has been sad to the contrary notwitl-
standing. This he put beyond the power of
refutation. But he stopped not there--he went
on, and by reference to the decision u ne SUI
premc Court alluded to, he showed conclusive,-t,.
in most pointed and thrilling climax, that this
most frightfu doctrine could not by. possibility,
be in it, or in any other Territorial bill-that it
is constitutional impossibility. With the same
master hand he showed that the doctrine of
"squattcr sovereignty" is not in the Cincinnati
platform Then why should we Of the South
now complain of non-intervention or ask o
change of platform


What else have We to do but to insist that
our allies stand to their agreement? Would it
not have been much more natural to look for
ninching on their side than on ours? Why
should we desire or want any other platform of
principles than that adopted at Cincinnati? :? If
those who stood with us on it, in the contest Of
1856, are willing still to stand on it, why should
we not be equally willing? For my life | can
not see unless we are determined to have
quarrel with the North any how, on general ac
count. If so, in behalf Of common sense, let us
put it upon more tenable grounds These are
abundant For our own characters sake, let
us make it upon the aggressive acts of our enc
mics rather than any supposed shortcomings Of
our friends, who have stood by us 50 steadlastly
in so many constitutional struggles. In the
name of patriotism and honor let us not make
it upon point which may so directly subject
us to the charge of breach Of plighted faith
Whatever may befall us, let us ever be found,
by friend or foe, as good as our word These
are my views, frankly and honestly given


The great question then is, shall we stand by
our principles, or shall we. cutting loose from
our moorlngs where we have been anchored so
many years, launch out again into unknown
seas, upon new and perilous adventures, under
the guide and pilotase of those who prove them
selves to have no more fiXedness Of purpose or
stability as to objects or policy than the Shifting
winds by which we shall be driven? Let this
question be decided by the Convention, and de-
cided with that wisdom, coolness, and forecast
which become statesmen and patriots. As for
myself, / can say, whatever may be the course
of future events, my Judgment in this crisis is
that we should stand by our principles Through
woe as well as Through wca}," and maintain