Year: 1860

Ialrlv explained. Moreover. when the Clnclnnut
platform was made. there was judicial question
not decided as to the precise time when the peo-
pie of Territory should determine the slavery
question for themselves under the Constitution
Now the Supreme Court, since the adoption OF
the Cincinnati platform, has decided that the
power does not begin TIL the constitution begins
Hence the single question for the convention at
Charleston was. whether they would make IN ex-
plicit declaration on this point explanatory of
the true intent and meaning. North and South. of
the Cincinnati platform in this respect


Tell me, WAS not that II just and reasonable de-
mand, that it should he explained and put upon
record beyond doubt or cavil2 Such is the uni
form practice in all declarations of principles in
religion or politics. That was all that WAS re-
quired touching this question of territorial power
over the individual property rights of the settlers
in Territory before it be ONES State; and how
can any fair-mindrd man my that it ought to be
kept open to dOubl" construction North and
South? AS hons men. we could not preach two
opposite doctrines from the same text in the same
church. and therefore. the DemOcr'tic party,
when reconsructing its platform to place can
didote upon it, were bound to declare just what
they meant by popular sovereignty" Us applied
to the Territories.


This they refused to do at Charleston. This
they refused to do at Baltimore, unless, indeed
| they have done it by their vague resolution. sus
ceptibe of many constructions adopted after The
severance of the Convention and after the dou
UIe NOMINATIONS were maze, ana III Tue very ClOSc
of their session. when it was too late to harmon
ize. A resolution which, il it have any meaning,
seems to utterly renounce the very squatter sove-
rcignty on which they made the division md re-
cognizes tn Dred Scott decision and all present
and future restrictions which the Supreme Court
have or may put upon territorial power over
domestic relations! They have thus, by sort Of
indirection. taken away their whole argument
upon popular sovereignty" in the Territories.
But before they did that they not only adhered
to their Charleston refusal to explain in the plat
form what they meant by "squattcr sovereignty
but they so reconstructed their Convention by
the exclusion of sovereign States and original
delegates, that the necessity was put upon the
seventeen retiring States which held the assured
Democratic elec ornl votes. to proclaim their
national creed in unmsla akable terms, having but
one meaning North and South.


This they have done in Il separate Convention.
They reahlrmed the Cincinnati platform with
three explanatory propositions, and to those three
propositions let me, somewhat in detail. call your
candid attention. They read as follows:


First. That the government of Territory
organized by Congress, is provisional and tempo
rary and during its existence all citizens Of the
United States have an equal right to settle with
their property in the Territory without their
rights, either of person or property. being des-
troyed or impaired by congressional or territorial
| leg islatOn.


"Second. That it is the duty of the Federal
government, Ill al ltS departments, W plOtcCI,
when necessary the rights OF persons ana prop
crty in the Territories, and wherever else its
constitutional authority extends.


| "7hird That when the settlers in u Territory
having an adequate population, form State
constitution, the right OF soverei gnty commences,
and being consummated Ivy adm ssiOn into the
Union. they stand on IN equal footing with the
people of other States, and the State thus organ
lied ought to be admitted into the Union whether
its constitution prohibits or recognizes the insti-
tuition of slavery


These nrc ull the propositions touching the
Interpretation Of the Cine innn platform. Take
them in their most comprehensive sense, and
what do they affirm?


| FIRST that all citizens have an equal right to
settle with their property in the common terri
tory, free from all risk that their rights of person
or property. when they get there, shall be des-
toyed or impaired by either congress on"l or
territorial legislation. Who will gainsAy this?
It is only our doctrine Of noninterrention
against the rights of property extended to the
territorial legislature ns we'll rs to Congress-
Who will say that the property rights OF citizens
settling there from other States may be interfered
with and destroyed by territorial legislature?
To affirm this territorial power is to declare that
a territorial legislature may rob citizens of their
property without compensation. Now, shall not
the citizens who go with their property to settle
in the territories be protected from the robbery
of territorial Legislature? To that question
| TINS proposition says yes w UO Says my.
The SECOND PROPOSITION nffirms the duty of the
General Government in all its Departments, to
protect when necessary. the rights OF persons and
| property wherever its constitutional authority
extends


And is not that an universal principle of good
governm mt? Who says that the Federal Govern
mcnt shall not protect persons and property
wherever it has authority to do so under the Con
stituto? Does it affirm anything more than
that it is the duty of Government to exercise its
constitutional functions in the protection Of per
sons and property? And it the power which the
Government is called upon to exercise be only, rs
in this case, {" INSTITUTIONAL POWER who can deny
the right and justice of its exercise? 1t calls for
no shave code no special legislation of Congress
no tariff of prot lection for slave labor 1t makes
no discrimination whatever in favor of slavery
If slave labor in the Territories be property, then
it is to be protected like all 9th r prOperty-no
more, no less. And what Democrat denies that
slave labor is property under the Constitution,
and by force of all the decisions of the Supreme
Court touching that property?


The Republicans deny it; and therein lies the
first fundamental difference between the higher
law of the Republicans and the constitutional
law of the Democracy; and how can Democrat
refuse TO affirm that distinctive principle which
divides the country upon this issue?


The THIRD PROPOSITION is the same in substance
as the resolution have quoted from the Cincin
natl platform. 1t makes popular sovereignty be-
gin with the act of making constitution. Ii
sets up popular sovereignty agansta vague, i'm
aginary power in a territorial legislature to des.
troy property without compensation; and it af
firms the only rule of sclfg' vernm>nt which
under our constitution and laws, can apply tO
communities or States.


And tell me. now il you can, where does "pop
ular sovereignty" exist under our American insti'
tutions but in the people of the States? Where
is there such q monstrous political creation to he
found as a territorial legislature with an magn
AIRY inherent power, outside Of the institutions o
the States, outside Of the organization of The
Federal Government. and subssting upon itself