Year: 1860

of the reasons why | prefer Mr.. Breck>
inridge to Mr.. Douglas This l shall do
without attempting to interfere with any
individual democrat or any State democratic
organization holding different opinions from
myself. The main object of all good dem
ocrats, whether belonging to the one or the
other wing of our unfortunate division, is to
defeat the election of the republican candid
ates and shall never oppose any honest
and honorable course calculated to accom>
plish this object


To- return from the point from which l
have digressed, am in favor of Mr. Breck-
inridgc because he sanctions and sustans
the perfect equality of all the States within
their common territories, and the opinion OF
the Supreme Court of the United States
establishing this equality. The sovereign


States of this Union are one vast partner
ship. The Territories were acquired by the


common blood and common treasure of them


all. Each State, and each citizen of each


State, has the same right in the Territories


as any other State and the citizens of any


other State possess. Now what is sought


for at present is, that portion of these


States should turn around to their sister


States and say, "We are holier than you


are, and while we will take our property to


the Territories and have it protected there,


you shall not place your property in the


same position" That is precisely what is


contended for. What the democratic party


maintain, and what is tie true principle of


democracy is, that all shall enjoy the same


rights and that all shall be subject to the


same duties. Property-this Government


was framed for the protection Of life, liberty,


and property. They are the objects for the


protection of which all enlightened govern


ments were established. But it is sought


now to place the property of the citizen,


under what is called the principle Of squatter


sovereignty, in the power of the territorial
legislature TO confscate it at their will and


pleasure. That is the principle sought to be


established at present; and there seems to


be an entire mistake and misunderstanding


among portion of the public on this sub
iect When was property ever submitted to


the will Of the majority? ["Never." Il


you hold property as an individual you hold


it Independent of Congress or of the State


legislature, or of the territorial legislature


it is yours and your Constitution was


made to protect your private property against
the assaults of legislative power. [Cheers.
Well, now, any set of principles which will


deprive you Of your property is against the
very essence of republican government, auC
to that extent makes you slave; for th'


man who has power over your property tt
conGscpte it, has power over your means Of
subsistence; aud yet it is conteudcd that al
though the Constitution of the United State.
conters no such power-although no State
legislature has any such power, yet terrific
rial legislature, in the remote extremities O
the country, can conGscate your property


TA VOICE. "Thcy can't do it !; the,
amt going to do TT


. There is but one mode, and one alone, t.
abolish slavery in the Territories JhQ
: mode is pointed out in the Cincinnati plat
5 form, which has been as much misrepre
sented as anything l have ever known
D That platform declares that majority o


the actual residents in Territory wheDeve
7 their number is sufficient to entitle them
j admission as a State, possess the power st

If form a constitution with or without domesti
d slavery, to be admitted into the Union upo
d terms of perfect equality with the othe
st States" If there be Squatter sovereignty |
J. this resolution l have never been able
II perceive it, If there be any reference in
r, to a Territorial legislature it has entirel
% escaped my notice. 1t presents the cle0
c principle that at the time the people forl


their constitution they shall then decid
e whether they will have slavery or not. An
d yet it has been stated over and over agai
ir that, in accepting the nomination under th'
/. platform, endorsed the doctrine of squattt
sovereignty. I suppose you have all hear
1T this repeated thousand times.


ofl IA VoicE. awe all knew it was lie"
S. Well, am glad you did.


n, How beautifully this plain principle {
le constitutional law corresponds with the be-
" interests of the people! Under it, emigran
IN from the North and the South, from tt
re East and the West, proceed to the TerritC
it ries They carry with them that propert
is which they suppose will best promote the
at material interests; they live together
a. peace and harmony. The question of slavel
as will become foregone conclusion befo
40 they have inhabitants enough to enter IL
D. Union as State. There will then be l
is "bleeding Kansas" in the Territories The
to will all live together in peace and harmon
a. promoting the prosperity of the Territol
b" and their own prosperity, until the tin
lie shall arrive when it becomes necessary
Is. frame a constitution. Then the whole quo
tie ton will be decided to the general satsia
i'll ton. But, upon the opposite princip'
1t what will you find in the Territories VIII
he there will be strife and contention all t
tn time. One territorial Legislature may esta
ss. lish slavery and another territorial legisl


ture may abolish it. and 50 the struggle W
is. be continued throughout the territorial e
he istence. The people, instead of devoti
les their energies and industry to promote th'
he own prosperity, will be in state of consta
las strife and turmoil, just as we have witness
N, in Kansas. Therefore, there is no possll
is principle that can be so injurious to the b
he interests of territory as what has be
it called squatter sovereignty.


M Now let me place the subject before \