1 -*'-—*
in'ir.' ,. « or squatters in sai<l Territory are clot.li
crt w an *iie sovereignty of a State, and possess the
| power and have the right, co instants, to legislate,
| on the subject of slavery, and to declare t.ljnt no
e , slaveholder shall settle in the Territory wi Hi his
slave property—or that hv unfriendly legislation,
which means the imposition of onerous taxation,
or may mean the establishment of underground
railroads, on which his slave pn>r>rrtv can be spirit
ed away to a free State or to C mda, forever ex
clude slavery from the Territories.
Mr. Douglas, is theembodient of this doctrine,,
and the sandnrd-hearer of the party. The only
•fifference between fnedoctrino of Mr. DotrGi.Asand
Mr. Lixcoi.h is this J The latter says that the Soutli
shall lie excluded by congressional legislation, from
the 1'iTrilories, and that no ntoreslave States shall
Imi admitted intothoUnion, w hile the former, holds
that iW people of a Territory, shall sayon itsorgaui
zatiun whether they will have slaves or not, and
that their net shall be binding on the people of the
Territory. Tho practical effect of which would be
to exclude the Smith therefrom—to populate the
country with abolitionists and bring the States, in
future, into the Union covered all over with the
slime of abolitionism, so that this doctrine of
“ squatter sovereignty” is, in fact, in the language
of Ooetrnor ll iw of Va., “ a short cut to abolition
ism.”
JBut it is said that
“NON-INTERVENTION”
is tlie doctrine of Mr. Douglas, and that the whole
democratic party of the nation, are fully committed
to that p inciple by the legislation of 1850 and
1851, as well us by the national democratic plat
forms of 1848, 1852 and 185li, and that the party
has abandoned the non-intervention doctrine, and
gone astray and that he alone has remained stead
fast! And he explains non-intervention, to mean
that the squatters of a Territory—existing by the
Huffr;tBce of Congress, are sovereign—that they
posse.-s exclusive control fiver the question ofslave
ry in the Territory, and that Congress has no right
to intervene to protect the citizen against direct or
Unfriendly legislation. Whereby they must sub
mit to heavy losses or be driven out of the coun
try, a doctrine of
“ Such frightful mien.
That to he hated needs but to be seen.”
Neither the compromise of 1850—the Kansas
Nelnaska act, nor the platform of the democratic
party contains any such political heresy. It. is a
construction put upon them by Mr. Douglas and
bis lHcnds at the North—the whole South ami a
laige portion of tho northern democracy always
contended that Congress had no power to introduce
or prohibit slaveryln tho Territories, and that the
territorial legislature, which was the mere creature
of Congress, cannot possess greater pow er than the
creator, (Congress) and that should it arrogate to
itself such power, Congress had not only the right,
but was bound to intervene to protect the citizen
against such a mal-exercise of power. Upon this
pta^sulij.eet the democracy were divided—some agree
| with Mr. Douglas, others holding with tho
| .South. They agreed for the sake of quieting ugi
t -Pf tation to compromise for a time these differences,
by declaring that Congress should not. intervene
’ ■... ■ “to establish slavery in, or to exclude it from the Ter
ritories,” leaving the question in dispute to ho ad
;f. juiiicatcd by the courts. Speaking of that ngree
| > mc#t in his great speech on tho Davis resolutions,
M»» Douglas said:
* “I believed the power existed; others believed
JKJ otnerwise; we agreed to diner; we agreed to refer
Ift ,,, it to t he judiciary; wo agreed to abide by,tlicir de
ft creirm.”
Jb J To this all agreed—each stood pledged to abide
jjprl by that- decision. The Kansas and Nebraska bill
® I aw passed under and through this spirit of com
pmiisc. The Cincinnati platform was adopted and
ii®»l9president elected with this understanding, but
■1 wore the Dred Scott opinion was given Kansas
hocked at the door of Congress for admission into
ML tltat'nion as a slave State. The people of the
IjFSt - Territory bad polled their votes—organized their
elect?on districts—held their election—appoint
% ed. their delegates—met in solemn convention
m famed their constitution in all things in
_strtri aeeordaiiee with the enabling net pruned by
[■ II&Douolas’ own hand; yet, notwitllsfaniliiig
(|:®|as the first to ask a territorial government—
tVo first to eneourgage her to ask to be admitted
klo the Union as a sovereign State, be was the
fit*to raise his arm to eject her, the first to raise
ajliloioc to condemn her ns unworthy of a place
confederacy, because her constitution autbor
lavery in Kansas. The great doctrine of non
-ention about which he and bis friends talk so
, mas then with him at an end. He had aflirm
riglit of the people of the Territory to make
te free under the Kansas bill, and it became
sary to do something to stop the clamors of his
ion friends in the North, and especially of his
tate, Illinois; consequently he separated him
pom the democratic party, who had delighted to
tr him, not only as a member but as a leader,
vithout stopping to ask whether the coiistitu
vas republican or not, the only touchstone
tn to the constitution, which be was sworn to
Jest, lve asked and demanded that Congress
uld intervene to exclude Kansas from the Union.
IThe bill to admit Kansas as a State under the
ompton constitution, without condition orquati
' *.bn, passed the Senate by a large majority, and
supported by democrats and none others, (ex
Mfr. Kenedy, of Md., an American.) It was
id bit all the black republicans, all of the Amc
, except Mr. Kenedy, and by Mr. Douglas
tree other democrats. It went to the House,
tis there defeated. * * * ft was there
ted by all the southern democrats and dl out
fro?!hern democrats—by all the South Ame
fiis. except -ix, tp-wit: Messrs. Davis, Rivard
I Harris, of Md*., Marshall and Uuderwood of
., and Gilmer, of N. C. If any four of these
l voted lor the bill it would have passed by aid
the speaker’s vote, but these South Americans
it’d with the abolitionists and defeated the bill.”
combs at Augusta, Ga., Mb Sept., 165'J.
'Ill*' Supreme Court of the United States in de
bug the Died Scott case covered the whole ground
-ijlroversy, and effectually settled the question
iSgrcvsional power over the territories, and
r of tlie Territorial Legislature over the sub
" slavery, sustaining to the letter the fair,
natural and constitutional construction put
e Cincinnati platform by the democracy and
ntire South.
Supreme Court said that territory—“ Is
c iu iniuuim; it otair, jnu nut* ue item
gud governed gress with absolute,
■' pncipJe upon which ourgovcrnmciit rests,
rich »lb*e they continue to exist, is the
” Again:
therefore, in the general government
A J3.V *sJd colonies ami dependent territo
''OTSJWcU hey might legislate without re
«a woul''inconsistent with its own exn
lgt'..'Us pt«®*®‘onn: W hatever it acquires, it
/« vC* h'r •** the people of the sever an
“ . urcate u- ;g tlieir trustee, acting
jwl coal r , 0 h the duty of promoting
epecijicnlly gjmon m the exercise ol
? The power krf ’’
tithe power to piuire, necessarily car
r Which it was ac e and apply to the
nfto be established!. The form ol
rctiou of Congress, ‘ssarily, is vested
. wta, c0«oi' ib constitutional a\ Acting within
< w ft ': \nfif\nthe rights of personify and not in
* r1$*' ’P Katizni who might go cuts of fro
Vw#,on/ ubfypwful purpose.'' *o reside, or
’ yseems, however, to be
| Vrb' a d^Vence between property osed that
j yBW^Jaud that different rules ves and
• ' vr ’1 in kpounding1 the constitutibe ap
v^r'^-V * * ^ut 'n con'i,'h *i|e
J be/breis, it must be borne in nntlie
® fljKj- m‘° iatv of nations standing betwetat
F the United Suites aad their governs
idllafering with their luxations to each oti
etj L^'u °1 the Unitediff «es bavedteiegatei
tx f jUnd forbidden i
.(Sksw-dHT* * * As Constitution ret
the property of f master in a since,
l’,tw,fn tM description of ,
fe 1 ' n ,r icronert ft Gened by a citizen, i
dolP Xhig under the ifithorriy of the Uni
r» £ ' ibe legisUU-if, exeettneorjudic
distinction or cKv to it the
a right * dear miataniees set eh hate b
Wit of the r°f%u ct w„ of \ri oate pry, y a<jai
1 providedJollnc r’ . , uaclrnwnt
the itself^ann^ th
And iltfr’-"" r"?r evened on
'■% if H is bsfond thv f" * thorUe a t«i,or
(Jov-muieut, it 1J\ Ueut,. If could ect_
coverfcuieit to e*¥<'yorn«B,~* , established X
scawasy' i" *,l,c
“tw «4h»: )&&"* •
f/United States have c-i4‘TW^k
. i . i
a———wcjt. r* *■. ■
I. Congress has a right to acquire territory and |
j theSs,mp»M*en acquired belong-- to the people o
j-a-iiK $T4OTt’
H. PMrrors are property, and arc to be regarded j
as other proper! :/.
III. Any citizen of the United H tales has a right j
to go to a territory and take there whatever pro
perty lie may possess.
IV. Neither Congress nor a territorial legislature
can infringe upon the right* of property of any
kind in a territory.
V. That while the territorial government con
tinues to exist, the inhabitants in their persons and
property must be protected.
This was all that the national democracy ever
contended for—all the South ever demanded—an
acknowledgment of the right of property in slaves
—Hint neither congress nor the territories posses
sed any power over it, to alter 01 destroy it—that
the territories acre the common property of all
the States, and that a planter Irom Georgia or
from Arkansas had the same right to go and . ottlc
therewith his negroes, that a Yankee has to go
there from Connecticut w th hi? clocks, and that
Congress is bound to see that lie is protected while
there in his person and his property.
Did Mr. Douglas abide by his agreement and
acquiescing in the opinion of the court, give up
his “squatter sovereignty,” thus shown to boa po
litical heresy? Did he say to theSouthgoto Kan
sas, New Mexico or Utah—take your slaves with
you, you have the same right to go there with them
under the constitution of the United States, that
the Yankee has to go there with his peddling cart,
and you shall be protected equally with him in your
person and property? Let his own record answer
this question, and it will explain mure fully why
he opposed the admission of Kansas with slavery,
lie desired to make it a free State, and wanted time
to bring it about, aided by unfriendly legislation.
In his speech at. Bloomington, Kith July, 1858, he
said: " Under the principles of popularsovereignty
(lie uses the word popular) slavery has been kept nut
iif Kansas.” And again he said: “If tills princi
ple of popularsovereignty, asserted in the Kansas
Ncbraska bill he fairly cairicd out, by letting the
people decide, the question for themselves, by a fair
vote, at a fair election and with fair returns, slave
ry will not exist one day nr one hour in any tehhi.
torv.” This he proclaimed all over Illinois, lobe
the practical result of his squatter sovereignty doc
trine; and when pressed bv Mr. Lincoln, who
showed that squatter sovereignty was in conflict
with the decision of the Supreme Court, he said in
his speech at Freeport:
“ No matter what the decision the of Supreme
Court may he on that abstract question, still the
right of the nson.K to make a slave territory or a
free territory, is Perfect and complete under the
Nebraska Bill.”
Here ho boldly affirms that the people of a ter
ritory have the right to nullify, set at nought and
trample not only upon the decision of the highest
judicial authority in.tlic world, but the constitution
—the only bond of union, and he reiterated the
same sentiment on every stump in Illinois. His
ambition to he President has made him desperate,
and caused him to resort to a species of demagogue
ism unworthy thedignity of a Senator of t he United
States, much less a candidate for the Presidency;
by claiming to ho the only man in the democratic
party who is in favur of self-government. This is
the beginning, the middle, and the end of his elec
tioneering song—this is his excuse for arraying
himself in hostility against (he national democracy,
who advocate the true doctrine of self-government
i. e. wnen the people meet in convention to lot-m a
State constitution—then, and not till then, are they
clothed with sovereignty. Again in his speech at
Chicago he said:
“ My objection to the Lecompton contrivance
was that it undertook to force slavery on the people
of Kansas against their trill."
And thus the attempt has been made by him to
create the impression that the democratic party,
and the southern people, wish In force slavery whirr
the people tin not want it, and where it is not desira
ble or profitable for it to go. Now no one knows
better than Judge Douoi.as that such an imputation
is a libel upon the democracy ant upon the south
ern people—all they ask, all they have over asked,
"was a recogiiitfwronhe principle of. State equality
—of the rights of all under the constitution, and
the right lo enjoy them equally, any and every
where within the limits of the United States—the
States and Territories. This right the abolitionists
deny—this right Judge Docolas denies, and advo
cates in lieu the odious doctrine of squatterism, un
der which he says “ slavery will not exist a day or
an hour in any territory.”
CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
Since the adoption of the Cincinnati platform in
185(i—Kansas has applied for admission as a sover
eign State—and been defeated. TheSupreme Court
in the Died Scot t caSe lias decided all doubtful con
stitutional questions in regard to the l ights and the
equality of the States and of tho people; and ow
ing to the fact that Mr. Douglas and those demo
crats North, who were of his wa v of thinking, had
asserted that under the Kansas act, and the Cincin
nati platform which had indorsed that act; the peo
ple of a territory during the territorial existence
had the right to exclude tho owner of slaves
from going there with that species of property;
it was demanded by the entire democracy and
the whole South, that the Charleston conven
tion when it met should in their platform assert
the eqaality of the States, affirm that they had an
equal right to goto the territories with their pro
perty, and that under the constitution they were
entitled to protection while there under tho terri
torial government.
“ The democratic convenUon of Alabama, as
sembled at Montgomery in January, I860, to ap
point delegates from that State to the Charleston
convention. It chose to declare the opinions en
tertained by a majority of its members, that no ter
ritorial legislature hail a right to prohibit the insti
tution of slavery, and that the Congress of the
United States was under immediate obligation to
maintain and protect that institution every where;
in the States—in tho territories—and in the w ilder
ness in which territorial governments are yet un
organized. To such a declaration of opinion by
the State of Alabama there could be no reasonable
ground of objection.” [Douglas’ address to the
democracy of theU.S.]
The sentiment embraced in the foregoing was
the sentiment entertained by the entire South and
by national men every where was based upon the
opinion of the Supreme Court, and, to it, (iu the
language oi tnc saw committee,; mere cornu ue
no reasonable objection.”
Yet Mr. Douglas seeing the tide of popularsenti
ment in that direction advertised his friends long
before the meeting of the convention, that if sen
timents such as those adopted by the Alabama-con
vention were incorporated in the platform at
Charleston, he would not accept the nomination;
and thus for the first time in the history of this
country, has an aspirant to the Presidency unso
I licited attempted to dictate to the democracy, tlie
; kind of platform lie wanted them to make for him
to stand upon. Thy time however arrived—the
j convention met, and as usual,a committee consist
| ing of one from each State was appointed to pro
| pare a platform of principles; a majority of that
j committee composed of the members of each of the
! 15 southern States, anil the members of the Pacific
States—Oregon and California, agreed upon the
following:
1st. That the Territories arc common property
held in trust for all the citizens of the United
States.
2nd. That all citizens of the United States have
I an equal right to settle in the Territories with their
| property.
3rd. That neither Congre.-s nor a Territorial
Legislature can destroy or impair their rights,
either of persons or property.
4th. That it is the duty of the Federal Govern
ment to protect those rights, wUieh contain the
i doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court, and
I 'lie doctrine contained in the Alabama resolutions;
tt, which the Douglas Executive Committee say:
°9-\ There could be no reasonable objection.” Vet
rid j report was summarily voted down by the
r°- 0f Mr. Douglas, (who by the adoption of a
ind ,v|n mle—the unit rule and the individual ru'...,
ted dmojeured to him some thirty or forty votes in
ul, j to'ntion to which lie was not entitled accord
hr- aIlj a usages of conventions heretofore adopted)
en tlie rieiitf'D' report was adopted, which ignored
•# Idenvine oil>,t‘ South and the Supreme Court, by
I Territories of thc e,',ml riSll,s ,n tho
isj drive the soulheir property- This was done to
were opposed f£n members (nearly all oi whom
no,, °ra k-Hui“‘ rT!:
“° from Alabama, r.h.f
td i ,vNi>pi, U‘x» , Florida, Sottfb
U. £aroJ" a-a,,,i 1,ea,riMvum Georgia and Arksn
\.!i,1rCW Bnd ti-eir solemn protest
^against the proeeoilm, of Uu. t,Mn,.„tion.
Douglas delegates ron.,^opted, ^et'
| mle—declaring tiia ggg \o£vz.ar
A /A /
rvf»v 1 r "T TtfVHMMrrF^T”™* '■rr'-Y nuMi.m 1
whole electoral college should be necessary to a
choice. Finding that they could not succeed in
making a nomination, they adjourned the conven
tion to Baltimore, on the 18th of June. In the
meantime, the seceding delegates returned and con
ferred with their constituents, who without one
single exception indorsed their action, and hoping
to t»ee a reconciliation effected, they re-accredited
them to the
It ALT! WORK CONVENTION.
Upon the meeting of the convention at Balti
more, delegates appointed by meetings gotten up
by the friends of Mr. Douglas without the shadow
of authority, from the States of Alabama, Louisiana,
Georgia, Arkansas, and several other btates were
there claiming a right to scats in said convention
in place of the regularly accredited members, who
were there ready to claim their seats, should the
convention manifest a disposition to do justice to
nil parts of the Union.
The contestants or unlawful, irregular bogus del
egates were admitted from the States of Alabama
mid Lousiana, and the regular delegates */*'re ex
cluded, and other irregular delegates from Arkan
sas, Georgia and other States, friendly to Mr.
Douglas were admitted with power to cast a cor
responding vote—against which unusual, unjust
and corrupt proceedings and manifest sacrifice of
principles for the sake of men, the whole South
with California, Oregon and a number of delegates
from the other northern States, entered their
solemn protest and withdrew, numbering (without
counting the eight votes of South Carolina) 105
votes out of the 503 votes, which left in the Doug
las convention 100 votes; less bv lki votes than
20ft t he number of votes necensary to make a nomi
nation. But it was resolved in the convention by
a vote on appeal from the decision of the presiding
officer, “ that the minority of the Georgia delegation
could not vote in the convention after the majority
hud withdrawn
By the application of this rule to the other dele
gations, (wh icli is but just, anil to which the
friends Of Mr. Douglas cannot object,) the minor iy
rotes < ast in the convention for Mr. Douglas from
the States of New Jersey, Maryland, Massachu
setts, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri,
Tennessee and Kentucky, 2f>)J votes were im
properly east in the convention, the majority of
the delegations from said States having withdrawn.
To this add tlie bogus delegations from Alabama
and Louisiana, 15 which wore east without au
thority making 41 votes. To which add the 15
votes east from New York, 6 from Ohio, I k, from
Indiana, cast under the unit rule for Mr. Douglas,
and it leaves but 123 votes regularly east for Mr.
Douglas. But according to the count of the
Douglas Executive Committee as given in their
address before referred to, where the names and
numbers are given of the persons who were in the
convention which nominated I\lr. Breckinridge,
they admit 105 votes, which would leave only 198
less than ”j of the whole electoral vote; rendering
it impossible for that body to make a nomination
under its own rules. So much lor the regularity of
Mr. Douglas’ nomination. lie is not the nominee,
and by his own mouth he stands condemned as un
worthy of support.
In 1852 ho made a speech at Richmond, Va.,
in which he said:
“ Well, Gen. Scott received the nomination
nanimouslyr according to the official proceedings of
the convention. Fellow citizens, did you ever
hear of a unanimous nomination which was made
in defiance of the fifty times repeated protests and
remonstrances of the delegations from one half of
the States of the Union represented in the conven
tion. Every southern delegation voting against
him more than fifty times, day after day and night
utter ntgnr, anti yet me nomination was unanimous.
The nomination of (Jen. Scott, therefore presents
to tiie American peoplethis extraordinary anomaly.
For the first time in the history of our party con
tests, has a sectional nomination been forced upon
either of the two great parties.”
By inserting Judge Douglas for Gen. Scott in
the above, it will apply with greater force to him
than it did when applied to Gen. Scott.
But lie was declared, after repeated baliolings,
the unanimous nominee of the convention.
And after the convention bad performed its
work, and many of its members had left, Mr.
Wick!iff, of Louisiana, introduced the following
resolution intending to give a quasi indorsement to
the opinion of the Supreme Court; so that lie could
have some excuse for asking Louisiana to support
Mr Douglas, and the resolution wins adopted, and
is appended to the Charleston resolutions.as a
part of the platform; and held out to the world ns
the sentiments of Mr. Douglas, when in fact Mr.
Douglas has since repudiated the doctrine con
tained in the resolution on almost every stump in
Illinois and in the route of his recent pilgrimage
in search of his mother.
In his speech at Springfield, Mass., lie even
went farther than ho had heretofore gone, and ad
vocated the “higherlaw ” doctrine tor the people
of the Territories.
“ The dogma that the citizens of a Territory
derive their power from Congress is the old tory
idea that the citizens of the original colonies de
rived their power from the crown. They exploded
this idea in the war of the revolution, and the prin
ciple of popular sovereignty was born. We hold
therefore that the citizen does not derive power from
Congress, fur he lias already dirived it from Cod
Almighty."
Can any southern man in the face of this testi
mony claim that he (Douglas,) is in favor of car
rying out in good faith the decrees of the Supreme
Court, and of meting out with an even hand,
justice to ail sections of the Union?
BRECKINRIDGE AND LANE.
It only remains to consider the claims of the
only national candidates now in the field, and we
challenge the strictest investigation into the record
of our candidates, and the platform of principles
upon which they stand. When all hope of reunion
at Baltimore had tied—when it was made evident
that the friends of Mr. Douglas wore determined
to nominate him or nobody—when the southern
delegates were ruthlessly ejected from seats in that
body—their equality positively denied in the con
vention, and by their platform virtually denied i«
the Union; they gathered up the platform which
had been indorsed by the whole South and the two
Pacific States (17 in number) at Charleston, and
which was repudiated and spit upon by Douglas
and his friends, while they admitted it “to be unex
ceptionable,” they assembled at the Maryland In
stitute, organized themselves into a convention,
adonted that rejected platform as embodying the
true constitutional principles, without alteration,
to-wit:
THE PLATFORM THAT BRECKINRIDGE AND LANE STAND
UPON.
Resolved, That the platform adopted by the de
mocratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the
follow ing explanatory resolutions:
1. Resolved, That the government of a territory,
organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and
temporary, during its existence all citizens of the
United States have an equal right to settle with
their property in the territory without their rights
of either person or property being destroyed or im
paired by congressional or territorial legislation.
2. Resolved, That it is the duty of the federal
government in all its departments to protect, when
necessary, the rights of persons and property in the
territories, and wherever else its constitutional au
thorin' extends.
11. Resolved, That when tlie settlers in a territory,
having an adequate population, form a State con
stitution, the rights of sovereignty commences,
and being consummated by admission into the
Union, they stand on an equal footing with the peo
ple of other States—and the State tints organized
ought to be admitted into the federal Union, wheth
er its constitution prohibits or recognizes the in
stitution of slavery.
4. Resolved, That the democratic party arc in
favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba on
such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and
just to Spain, at the earliest practical moment.
5. Resolved, That the enactments of State legis
latures to defeat the faithful execution of the fugi
tive slave law are hostile in character, subversive
of the constitution, and revolutionary in their
effects.
G. Resolved, That the democracy of the United
Stats* recognize it as the imperative duty of this
gOvcrm«ent to protect the naturalized citizen in all
his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to
the same exti-»t as its native-born citizen.
And whereas, «ne of the greatest necessities of
the age, in a p, l;,i‘'at, comm "'•tp' and mili
IU1V point o#>et a /~‘«>-ned. Goiig ..lion be
tween the Vr Takes the Responsibility.— m
be it glas leaders have taken the respon
jrfUity of refusing the offer made by Breck- se
Turidge’s friends, to fuse in New York and de- bi
feat Lincoln, Let our friends everywhere cx« W
plain this to the people. tw
sippi river to the Pacific ocean, at the earliest prac- ,
ticablc moment.
A platform just to the North, just to the South, ;
just to the East and just to the West, clearly de .
fining the equality of the Slates, and tlie rights of j
all under the constitution, as expounded by the i
Supreme Court, and they nominated Brfckinridgi:
and Lank as the standard bcareis of the national
democracy.
Wc present to the country a platform of princi
ples co-extensive with the Union—one that metes
out equal and exact justice to all—and denies ex
elusive privileges to any. Wc ask for no slave
code, nor for a mule code, nor any other code for
the protection of any one species of property more
than another. We ask nothing but the recognition
of rights affirmed by the Suprem# Court to exist
under the protection of the constitution.
The platJbrm is clear ’and explicit, and repels the
false charges, made by demagogues, that we are in
favor of the extension per se of the institution ot
shivery. We deny the right of the federal gov
eminent, either directly, or by any of its organized
members to injure or oppress any section of the
country, and demand that it shall afford the full
measure of protection to all our citizens, in the
full enjoyment of whatever kind of property they
may possess. This we understand to be tlie creed
of the democratic party now and heretofore. The
doctrine of protecting slave property against the
“ unfriendly legislation” of which Mr. Douglas
speaks so much, and which he claims for the poo
pie the power to exercise by virtue of a “higher
law” than Congress, and above its control, is no
new principle in the legislation of this country.
In 1834, several cit; zeria ol" Virginia, who wore
injuriously affected by the “unfriendly legislation’*
of Florida, memorialized Congress as follows:
“ The memorialists allege that they are the
owners of a number of slaves, removed several
years ago from Virginia to the Territory of Florida;
that the Legislature of said Territory lias imposed
a tax of ten dollars a head on all the slaves of non
residents which shall be hired out without refer
ence to the amount for 'vhich said slaves may have
been hired; that an ix post facto operation wai
given to this enactment, by applying it to slaves
hired out several weeks before the passage of the
law, and that the same, or perhaps another law,
subjects any non-resident’s slaves that may be sold
in the Territory to a further tax of fifteen dollars
each. They, therefore, ask Congress for relief.”
’File memorial was referred to a committee, who
made the following report:
“ The committee are satisfied that the memo
rialists are entitled to relief. It is certainly against
the policy of the United Stalls, as well as the. dictates
of, common justice, to allow any Territorial Legisla
ture to tax the property of von residents higher than
the same property of resident citizens.
“The committee think Congress should always pro
tect the property of the cilia ns of the United States
when subjected to the. operation of unjust legislation
by the territorial governments. In the case above re
ferred to that principle of protection is asserted and
maintained in practice. The same principle requires
the same, practice now. Arid for that purpose the com
mi flee herewith report a bill.”
The bill so reported was enacted into a law by
Conuress, and wa> approved by President. Jack sol,
on the 30tli of June, 1834. That law is as fol
lows:
“Brit enacted by the Senate and House of Repre
sentatives of the United States of America in%s.m
i/res* assembled, That ail such acts or parts of acts
passedby the legislative council of the Territory
o£ Florida, as may impose a higher or greater tax
on the slaves or other properly of non-resident citi
zens than is imposed on the slaves or other property
of resident citizens, be, and the same are hereby re
pealed and declared null and, void.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any
nf'Knn kIimII ■ltf.Ultud tr* m iVifi.n run. r\V .ink.
parts of acts pissed by the legislative council of
the territory of Florida, as aforesaid, by demand
ing or receiving any tax,,imposition, or assessment
authorized or prescribed thereby, such person shall
on conviction thereof, he punished by fine not exceed
ing two hundred dollars, or by hr nrisonmevl not ex
ceeding six months, or cither or both of said punish
ments.”
When this measure was under discussion there
was no man in Congress bold enough to claim for
the territorial government power to thus legislate
against slave property, or to deny the right or power
of Congress to intervene to correct territorial mal
legislation, and to protect the owners in the peace
ful enjoyment of their slaves, as well as other pro
perty, but all concurred that, the legislative council
had no right to pass such a law, and yet Mr. Doug
las says shat “protection” of slaves thus is “dis
union,” po do the whole black republican party.—
They say it is a species of special legislation, to pro
tect the property of one-half of li e Union, while
it affords no protection to the same species of pro
perty m the other half, where no slaves exist; and
this abolition cry of disunion, special protection,
and slave code, gotten up with a view to divide the
democratic party, has been caught up by Douglas
and Bell, and their blowers all over the country,
who denounce Mr. Breckinridge, and the great
democratic party now rallying to his support as dis
unionists!! Because, forsooth, Mr. Yancey was
in the Charleston convention and refused to
bow down and worship Stephen A. Douglas, who j
denies the eyuylity in the Union of the fifteen
southern States! Mr. Yancey, however, denies the
charge, but he supports Mr. Breckinridge; there
fore, it is asserted that the Union v. ill surely be
dissolved should he be elected to the Presidency!
Now by the same parity of reasoning Mr. Lin
coln, Mr. Bell and Mr. Douglas arc all disunion
ists! Mr. Lincoln is supported by Charles Sum
mer and Fred Douglas, both of whom are posi
tively in favor of a dissolution cf the Union; Mr.
Bell is supported by Mr. Sharkv, of Mississippi,
who was one of the original Mississippi fire-eaters!
Hon. B. H. Hill, a Bell and Everett elector for
the State at large of Georgia, said in his Dudley
letter, speaking of the black republicans:
“ After mature deliberation I can see but one
reply for this people, and that is war—war in+oery
sense by which the term is defined or definable. Can
argument reach them? It is the law they arc or
ganized to defy—to violate—can appeals for justice
move them? It is justice to one-half the Union
I which they seek to destroy.
Fortunately, the powers of the general govern
ment on this subject might be regarded in charity,
as an open question, and resistenco to the mere
election of a person entertaining different views
from ourselves, might not have been so easily de
fended, but to resist the success o f such a party, xc ith
such purposes now, can no longer be regarded as other
than a right and a duty.”
Mr. Douglas is supported by Gov. Winston, of
A Inlinrnn II L'l, W T (1L' I I L’r f . ■ nn.) !.< miiiiiinif
on the samo ticket with Herschf.l V. Johnson, of
Ga., all of whom according to the authori v of Mr.
Douglas w ere concerned in the plot of Gov. Wise
and Air. Yancey to dissolve the Union in 1656,
Gov. Winston, in his message to the Legislature
of Alabama, 7th Nov., 1657, said:
“ It is only necessary for us to he true to our
selves to preserve our institutions and to be a great
and prosperous people. The Union Li not with ns
of the South a ‘ paramount political good; ’ howev
er much we may and do desire its continuance,
under a strict adherauce to constitutional provis
ions and guarantees. When these can no longer
be maintained, or when further aggressions noon our
right is practiced by a dominant political power
at the North, ire have everything to gain and
nothing to loose ‘by disrupting every tie ilea', binds
us to the confederacy.” ’
Mr. Wirtston is Douglas elector in Alabama—
therefore, should he be elected the Union would
certainly be at an end! It follows, therefore, ac
cording to the logic of Lincoln, Hell and Doug
las, and their friends who seem to make common
cause against the national democracy, that aU are
in favor of disunion, and unworthy of confidence
and support. But the reasoning is false, ami is
only resorted to by demagogues and political trick
sters, who wish to give an improper bias to the
public mind, so that they may bo advantaged by the
practised Imposition. It matters not whether Mr.
Yancey is individually in favor of disunion or not.
Mr. Brecrinriuk and the whole democratic party
are not to be held responsible for his individual
opinions upon that or any other subject; and any
attempt of the kind to east suspicion upon our
ticket, should be “ laughed to scorn as the deraa- ;
goguery of knaves, addressed to the stupidity of j
fools.” John C. Breckinridge, in liisbirth, in his
lineage, in his education and associations, in his |
hopes and aspirations; in his head and in his heart, ;
he is as pure aud loyal to jj.e constitution and the j
Union as Mohammedm# to fbe Koran, nr as religion ’
-.God. Iu tho language M ‘u' “‘'dress to the
—— It is .... i v*' '' -> those ,.]JO Have
veuty-five yers old, »- Is any one within the
la (Nictates who loves tht Union
^ un»| Ulan V,., to serve it—work Li- it_
hite House, an in—die for it more wilhi^U —
o mouths old' '
w,.MjjmiiiHjg r
more disinterestedly—more fervently than lie, his
friends w ould place him at the feet of such an one
!o learn a lesson. His motto is and has always
■jeen, “the constitution and the equality of
ms states—these are the sy mbols of everlast
ing union; let these be the rallying cry of tiie
And his honored compeer on the ticket—the bat
tle scarred Lane is no less loyal in his devotion to
the constitution and the Union. In (act, the whole
ni iiiv of influential men, as well as the great mas
ses, who are rallying to their support are for the
perpetuation of the Union, in the preservation ol
the Constitution. Look at our platform—no trea
son lurks beneath an ambiguity of words it over
flows with evidences of democratic attachment to
ihe Union. The democracy have made our coun
lrv—our glorious Union what it is, and they will
not desert it now, t ut with unwearied devotion and
renewed exertion, they will carry it on to still grea
ter heights of national grandeur and glory.
With such a platform and suclistnndard-bearers,
wc joyfully and with pride fling that glorious old
democratic banner, under which we hove battled
mid conquered so often, to the breeze, in full con
fidence that the honest masses will rally round its
standard, as they are doing in all the other States.
Every breez.c wafts to our ears the pleasing tidings
of desertions from the sectional standards to swell
the tide of Breckinridge and Lane; Douglas and
Bell are both, through their respective friends
making desperate efforts to carry this State, but
they will both prove abortive—they will piove to
he spasmodic convulsions of galvanized bodies
all their hopes will soon vanish, when no doubt they
will form a fusion ticket here a* they have done in
other States; but if the good men and true—the
honest yeomanry of the country w ho are never in
fluenced by other than patriotic devotion to their
country, and to therperpetuity of this glorious un
ion of confederated States; will stand to their arms
the victory is with the constitutional democracy.
Be not deceived by the cry of Union, ot the one,
or the popular sovereignly of t.lic other—these are
only some of the many catchwords resorted to by
the subtle to catch the unwary. Let every demo
crat—every conservative man—every States right
man of whatever party, buckle on the whole poli
tical armor, and battle for the cause of truth—jus
tice—“the Constitution and the Equality of
the States,” which our gallant standard-bearer,
has justly sold, “are the symbols of Everlast
ing Union,” and the ides of November will find
victory perching upon our banners. The waves ot
Bellevcrett abolitionism—Lincoln black republi
canism, and Douglas’ squatter-free-soilism w ill be
stayed, and the threatened revolution averted—the
Constitution and the equality of the States pre
served—the rights of the people vindicated, and the I
Republic saved.
J. W. McCONAUGIIEY,
Chairman. J
“ The connf.lji'c think congESS should always
protect the prflity of the citizns of the United
States when sijctcd to the opemlon oi an unjust
leirislation l>v tie territorial govtrament. In the
tlie case abovl referred to that, principle of pro
tection is assi'd and maintained in practice.
The same prJiple requires the same practice
now. and for tft purpose the committee herewith
report a bill.”
The bill I reported passed the congress,
whose disttnised character we have por
trayed, wflout a division, and was. ap
proved bv resident Jackson on the 30tli
of June, /34. 'J’lic law can be found in
the 7th vf»nc of Statutes at large, page
61), chap'll It is as follows:
lie ti enait by the. Senate and Jtense of Rcprr
sertatir.es o 'r United Stairs nf America in Conyress
assembled,hit all such acta or partsof acts passed
bv the logptivc council of the territory of Honda
as may irujsea higher or greater tax on the slaves
ortho propy of non-resident citizens than isim
possed onfc slaves or other propery of resident
citzens bf'iid the same are hereby, repealed and
declared ill ami void. .
“ Sue./ And be it further enacted, I hat lfativ
person s»l attempt to enforce any of the acts or
carts oflts {Missed by the legislative council oi
the ten-fry of Florida as aforesaid, by demand
ing orrjiving any tax, imposition, or assessment
authoriJ or prescribed thereby, such persons shall
on coin!ion thereof, be punished by fines not ex
ceedinJvo hundred dollars, or by imprisonment
not exjfding six montlis, or either or both oi said
punishlfnts.”
TlJ Washington Constitution, in com -
me.ii/g upon it, says: This law establishes
as a act that a democratic congress inter
ven for the purpose of ■protecting proper
ty a territoy against the unfriendly leg
ig]ion of the territory, and that interven
tir was approved by Andrew Jackson.
T report of the committee above cited,
wch in 1834 met the unanimous appro
v of the democratic president and the
(inoeratie party- in congress, asserts the
me principles which are rcognizod by
.c supreme court of the United States, by
v! resolutions of the senate, and by the
jitform reported by a majority of t)/
^ates at Charleston and adopted by ra
(invention at Baltimore which nomij/fec'
T. Breckinridge for i’residcfW, viz:/
“ First, That the governnmit of/ b:rn
>ry organized bv an act of C</»rcSii ,’s
i?7T To our Douglas friends who so per-/'
sis cntly contend that the squatter soverf
eignty doctrjne of Douglas, lias ever beet
the policy of the democratic party, and tin),
protective policy of the administration ism
new issue sprung for the purpose of ruin
irig the Little Giant—we invite the carefe
perusal of the following; revolve it, thin
of it, and refute the argument, or acknow
edge your error:
From the Avalanolic
Protection to Slave Property in le
Territories no New Doctrine.
The twenty-third Congress was oirof
the most talented that ever illustrated he
history of this country. In the Koitc
that great trio, (’lay, Calhoun and Wei or,
were in the palmiest days of their brilant
reputation. They had then reachei the
acme of their lame. Amongst their lns
trious associates in that, body at thatime,
were, Samuel l’rintiss, Silas Wight,
Theodore Frcclinghuysen, S. L. Somard,
John 31. Clayton, Win. C. Rives,John
Tyler, John Forsyth, Felix GrnudyHugh
L. White, Alexander Porter, GeorgPoip
dexter, Wm. R. King and Thoias II.
Benton.
In the House of Reptesentativs there
were amongst others George Fvan. Rufus
Choate, John Quincy Adams, Id ward
Everf.tt, Tristum Burgess, Chiwhill C.
Camberling, 3Iiixai,d Fillmore, Iiilemon
Dickerson, Horace Binney, Hnry A.
Muhlenberg, William Coast ohnson,
William S. Archer, Andrew Stphenson,
Ilenery A. Wise, Lewis William, Associ
ate Justice Wavne, of the Supreio Court,
Richard H. Wilde, Richard M,Johnson,
Robert P. Letcher, John Beil,-.Julie Pay
ton, David Crockett, Thomas Corwin,
Edward A. Pennengton, Clemci 0. Clay,
sr., Dixon II. Lewis, and JohiulcKinley,
The executive administrntia was not
lets distinguished; Andrew Jdcson was
at its head.
Lewis 3[cLane, Rodger B. "anor, Levi
Woodbury, Lewis Cass, and Yui. T. Bur
ry were in the cabinet.
At this period in the histoiyof our coun
try, the legislature of the the: territory of
Florida, assailed the propertyof non-resi
dent citizen.. of the United Sates l>y tax
ing their slaves to an exccssye extent, so
as to perclude their introduttion. One of
the very devices suggested li Judge Doug
las, by which a territorial legislature may
exclude slavery, no matter what the su
prem court may decide, .limes M. Gar
nett, 31. Garnett, and Main II. Garnett,
of Virginia were sufferers by this exercise of
RrmaHer snvereirmtv l.v tlm territorial lee
islnture. They petitioned Congress for its
protection.
The petition was referred to a commit
tee of nine, five oJ whom were from the free
states, and at the head of which was the
celebrated Lewis Williams, of X. C., fo
many of the last years of his service th
oldest consecutive member of the House.
Their report will be found in the offi<
volumes, being Xo. 25S, first session1
22d congress.
It is as follows:
February 11th, ];■
“Mr. Williams, from the committee on '’to
nes, made the following report. ,f
“ The committee on the territories, *hich
was referred the memorial of James M.,rj,ctt>
M. Garnett, and Maria II. Garnett, Essex
county, Virginia, report:
“ 'file memorialists allege that th !,ro the
owners of a number of slaves removed s'.”1' years
ago from Virginia to the territory o0fi"da; that
the legislature of said territory has fused a tax
of ten dollars ahead on all slaved" non-resi
dents which shall he hired out, wil'd reference
to the amount for which aid slaves'! have been
hired; that an ex poslfactn operatbwaa given to
this enactment by applying it to f,os lured out
several weeks before the passajid the law; and
that the same, or perhap- nnothe'subjects any
non-resident’s slaves that may Isold in the terri
tory to a father tax of fifteen eiU'h. They
therefore ask congress for re lb ’
“ The committee are satisfi that the memori
alists are entitled to relief. certainly against
the policy of the Unite#Rtes, as well the
dictates of common justice, allow any territorial
legislature to tax the prop# of the non-residents
higher the same property </e ident citizens.”
“The prorisiouarv itftrity appointed under
the act of 23d of FebrSfy, 1819, having passed
an ordiuauce nrovidii/ tor the tlftturali/a
tion or the ftmabitu* If Florida, and the
citv council of St. ./gTstine having imposed
by ordinance, cmaim taxes upon the inhabi
tant, an act of cottgris was passed on the 7th of
May, 1822, repealing koth ordinances and making
the execution penal ’ rice 7th vol. laws of the
United State* page m chap. 86)
\ 0 ■ ->
oicoTi•—j no V4v°vu ,r,*wv*
cS of to-day anfant to 4,000 hales at
j to 104 for Kef Orleans middlings.—
our—the maakfe*‘oh°d with an advane
ig tendancy, havif advanced 5c. per hid.,
(noted at §G 25 1/86 85. Corn closed at
18 to 80c. h’rci/s on cotton to Ha.vre 1-j.
C,sf mati, Sept., 17, r. m.
Flour._'ppo/oamship Canadian’s ad
rices caused I f linnness in the market;
54 75 is often/ Wheat closed very dull
it a decline off- 1* husliel. < 'orn closed
vetive at 50e.f bushel. Oats are selling
it 81c. Wl#y closed at 10c. 'Western
mess pork elf d at 1b to 810.
_- *»
ICITEMENT.
Wo Icarfbero is considerable excite
ment previfg iu Bentonville, our neigh
(jorinir tov|on account of the recent house
burning t1# occurred there on last Satur
day ni'ihtJ“PP0S°d to be tlio work of an
incendiarly the name of Bowen, who came
to this ]•/} Bom Kansas.
The jJieulars wo were unable to ascer
tain fulf The substance of the report, is
thatdijg the night the alarm of fire was
raised X the dwelling house of Caldwell,
on thofith-west corner of thc square was
disco-Jd to be on fire. Many citizens
ivor-- J-se<i from their slumbers, but were
afraiV hiavo their own premises, heliov
in- w be only the commencement of a
gen# tiling of the town. The house
waJb°lly eonsuined but the furniture dLi
sai#
•igilanee committee assembled which
: in starting the above mentioned
gfidnal on the stage to Springfield, Mo.,
| tl roof being insufficient to fasten guilt
j ,#!usively upon him, and bring down on
I ahead the punishment he o richly <’e
i#es.—Fayetteville -
I __ J
r 4 • -on, v •
- ,m-- «j|