Year: 1859

That an overwhelming majority Of the De-
mocracy Of the South adhere to the principle
of Congressional uon.inte.ycn,ion, there can
be no doubt among candid and wellinlormcd
persons.


A nd why should not this be the position Of
the Democratic party? 1t is obvious aud un-
denable that the unity of the party is possible
upon no other condition. Northern Democrats
no matter how exempt from anti slavery preu.
dice, and no matter how fearless in support Of
their opinions, dare not advocate the doctrine
Of Federal legislation for the establishment Of
slavery in the Territories, even though their
Judgment should approve the policy. OF this
we had convincing proof during recent de.
bate in the Senate, in the prompt and emphat-
ic reputation of intervention by the men from
the North whom we ore accustomed to regard
MS the truest and bravest champions Of the
Constitution. Not solitary politician, nor
single newspaper in the North Of any name or
party, will tolerate the idea Of Congressional
intervention for the support Of slavery, If the
Northern Democracy should embrace the doc
irine, they would he swept from existence By
the breath of popular Indignation They have
already gone TO the nr,hest limit of conces.
sion TO the exigencies Of their Southern alliance
and. although they have only responded TO the
obligation Of the CONSTITUTIONS, they have bare
ly maintained 4 foothold against the pressure
Of an adverse public opinion. Shall we exact
greater sacrifices Of the Northern Democracy


Is it generous to impose the condition Of self.
annihiation upon allies who have exhibited the
most sigual fidelity Of attachment to our inter-
csiS? Is il Just to demand their active assist
alre in the propagation Of slavery afterSecur
;.,o. -. ~ ,r Nnh,oeI,,
bv the assurance that the South wanted moth
in bnt non.intervcntion? Is it polite to repel
the friends in the North upon whom we rely
in the struggle with Abolitiouism, by the de-
mand of a service rcpugnant to their feelings
and Incompatible with their existence2 We
repeat, if the Southern Democracy intend to
insist on this condition Of alliance, they might
MS well prepare for final separation from
their Northern associates. Nay more: if the
South is resolved to require TIL" intervention
Of Congress for the establishment Of slnccry in
the Territories the dissolution of the Union is
inevitable; for the demand will never be conce-
ded, and as earnest and determined men we
will he bound to resent the repuse, and to pro-
vide for ourselves the protection which we
claim to be essential to our interests.


This demand. therefore Of Congressional in.
tervcnton is in effect proposition for the dis
solution of the Democratic party and the over
throw of the Union.


II is objected that the doctrine ofnon.inter-
vcntion involves the principle of squatter
sovereignty. We do not perceive the logical
dependency Of the propositions The follow
ing resolutions adopted by the Democracy of
Tennessee in their recent convention, announces
the true principle, without at all implying the
idea of sqnatt"r sovereignty:


"Resohed, That we are satisfied with the
views announced by the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the celebrated case of Dred
Scott, Oh the right of Shareholders and the
statute of slavery in the Territories, are will
ling to abide by the principles announced in
that decision Slarerv and The rights Of Stare
holders are pro,eciM By Me Constitution Of the
United S"tes, and By an appeal 10 The nct'on
of Mejudieinl tribunals of The Union, until The
formation If a constitution by the people of The
Trritorg and then The !Stnte must decide far
itself on Mat ns peN as other legitimate objects
of gortrnment


This is our doctrine. We maintain that the
rule of nonintcrventon restrains Congress
from legislation in respect % slavery in the Ter.
rtories, but it does not follow from this posi-
ton that the Territorial Legislature is invest
ed with absolute authority on the subject.
Congress could delegate only the power it pos
srssed and Ms we deny to Congress the right
to exclude or prohibit slavery IN the federal
domain, We deny the same power to the Ter
rtoria Legislature. To what point the jurs-
dicton Of the Territory extends is an issue for
the decision of the courts If the Territorial
Legislature clam power incompatible with
its deriyativc and subordinate authority the
STAKEHOLDER may protect himself by an appeal
to the judicial tribunals where right and rea.
son prevail, aud not to Congress, which would
repel the demand, though ever so just


AS expounded by It's great champion, squat
ter sovereignty signifies an inherent and orig.
nal right in the people of the Territories. indie
prndent and exclusive of the paramount au'
thority of Congress. We maintain that the
power of territorial government is derived


from Congress and limited by the necessary
conditions of its origin. Is this an hcretcal
opinion? If so, it is n species of heresy which
we find inculcatcd in every authoritative expo
sition of Democratic doctrine - States


s&r mans mouth is made to talk and


ho Of h,p,cnlf JrauJfuly hy