Year: 1860



 ional protection, and thought him sound as a Southern man; and endorsing his views, had the boldness publicly to express their choice for him, against the wishes and dictation of that naughty, dictatorial, fac- tious and corrupt oligarchy, known as the "Gamily." This independence was an honor and credit to them, because 1t showed that they were men, that they had the boldness and independence to think, act and speak for themselves, without consulting the "powers that be-" that they had drawn their lessons of democracy from the great fathers of democracy, and had refused to consult the big toad that sits in the puddle at Little Rocll-had re fused to obey his behests-and when he in his big puddle crooked, and all the little toads, in all the little puddles all over the State, set up their croakings-the demo- cracy of Prairie, like men "good and true," turned with indignation and disgust from the filthy and slimy spectacle. Col. G. then took up the subject of congress- ional protection said the difference be- tween Dr. MITCHELL and himself was that Dr. M. held that Congress had the right and power to protect slave property in the territories, but that he thought it inexpedient to demand that protection, because it would break up the democratic party; and also. if we asked protection, Congress would abolish the institution in the territories. Col. c. said if it was our right, under the constitution, 10 be pro. tected in our property in the territories, we should demand the enforcement of that right and protection; that he wanted no rights which could not be enforced.

 He then showed that the Union had been threatened once because the Aboli. liton party had asserted the power and duty in Congress to abolish slavery in the territories that the South denied that power in Congress, and maintained that Congress could neither establish or abolish slavery in the territories; that it was now settled and conceded that Congress could not establish or abolish slavery in the ter- ritories. He then read from the Dred Scott decision, sustaining that position, and asserting the poscer and duty of Con- gress to PROTECT slavery as we'll as all other property In the territories. Said that one of his opponents objections to the exercise of protecting power by Congress was knocked from under him that his opponent was afraid, if they asked protec- tion, Congress would abolish slavery in the territories that the decision just read showed Congress had not the power to abolish. but had the right to protect, and it was the duty of Congress to do so that as to the other objection, that to demand the exercise of the protecting power would disorganize the democratic party, he said if the democratic party had become so corrupt and unfaithful as to quit the Con- sttution, and become dismembered be- cause the Southern wing of it insisted on their constitutional rights, then for one he was willing to let 1t divide and defeat overwhelm it; that the glory of the demo- cratic party had been its nationality, and its rigid adherence to the constitution, and its willingness and ability to protect all sections of the country; and now, if the as- sertion of constitutional right would di- vide il, it had ceased to be national, was no longer the party of the constitution, and would not do for the South; but he hoped the party would still remain true to its cherished principles.

 He then showed that the position of Dr. MITCHELL was as dangerous to the South as that of Douglas. The Dr. thought Congress had the right to protect but that it ought not to be done, or we should not ask it to protect. Douglas said Congress could not protect; but that the people of territory, by unfriendly legis- lation, could exclude slavery. Now if the people of a territory passed law that would drive out the slaves that were already there, and prevent others from coming, Dr. MITCHELL would say to Congress, you have the power to protect that property against that unjust and lle- gal legislation, but I don't ask you to do it. Douglas would say to Congress, you can't protect it; and what is the diference? you are excluded any how. One says Congress can protect, but hands of, gen. other says Congress can't protect, hands off, gentlemen. The two doctrines, though somewhat different, have the same effect.

 Col. c. said he had tried to get Dr.