Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 6, Indianapolis, Marion County, 31 July 1860 — Page 1

1 GVA IB. H THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EQUALITY OF THE STATES!

OILB

1 MiEj

VOL I.

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, TUESDAY, JULY 31, 18(0

NO. 6.

THE OLD LINE GUARD. is i'i;nijsni;i) Tni-WBBKIjT, -A T- INDIANAHOM I N l I A N A , II V ICI.IMCIt A; IIAItKNESS.

1

TEnMS, ,00, until after the Presidential Election. In advance, in all cases. . Advertisements inserted at tho usual rates.

SPEECHES OF HON . HUMPHREY MARSHALL , HON. B. F. IIALLETT, IN THE ' CITY of WAHHIKTGTOKr ON THE NOMINATION OF Breckinridge and Lane. SPEECH OF HON. HUMPHREY MARSHALL, OF KENTUCKY.

Ocnllemen :- I mil not in the habit' of receiving

their Stato shall be a slaveholding State or a free State." The other part of the committee refused to accede j to these propositions, and, on tho contrary, adhered to ,

the doctrine announced by Judge Douglas, wincu asserts the right of the people of a Territory," while in their Territorial condition, to legislate so as to exclude slaveholders from an enjoyment of their slave property in the Territory, and denies to Congress the power to extend to them any protection against such unfriendly legislation. I believe I have truly stated the points of defer

ence which ultimately severed the convention, and have presented to the country the nominations of Sen-1

! ator Douglas and of Vice President Breckinridge. I

It is also true that, from the slaveholding States, many Democrats were present who refused to leave the convention upon these points of difference, regarding!

them as ot no consequence; while others distinctly coincided with and embraced the doctrines advanced by the Senator from Illinois; and upon these points the latter promised the acquiescence of the people of tho slaveholding States, to be shown by the defeat of Mr. Breckinridge. The lines of the canvass are thus drawn, so as to call on the people of tlie slaveholding States to avow their sense of mew own rights in these particulars, and that call renders it imperative, in my opinion, that even' legal voter in those States should turn aside

I from other questions to act upon these, which are ! thus rendered paramount for the occasion. I. cannot

imagine a wider mistake than those gentlemen have made who would persuade, our Northern people that the slaveholding States have been indifferent to their

I rights in the territories, or their equality under the

i... i t .1 ii .,.i

l it , l .... 1,1 V A" I 1 UII31 H U I IUI1 Dltll IIR', IflllN JL IJ1I1JA. UU'Y 111UL Illlll

UdUS 1IUI11 1CUlULl fllll. lllclWCB . Ullt lb 11UUIU UtT. (til UI- ! .1 1 1 i I . , n . l , . .. , . i , , ., . t , , . , ; themselves in a sad minority when the day of trial fectation to conceal my knowledge, that I am indebted i , ... ., . i -n 1 ,. ., , ,. . -. . , . . .. shall come, it they expect that party drill can make fnr the honor of tins visit to vonr desire to hear, from ' . '

41 siiimfrpr snvprpiim li

ft ponhiTnation nt the. riimoi. that I wil 1 . . .. " J

A Voice Will you answer me a question a civil question ? . Mr. Marshall Yes, if you will show your face. Same Have you abandoned your Americanism to

support John Vt Breckinridge (

SPEECH OF HON. B. F. IIALLETT, OF MASSACHUSETTS.

THK CINCINNATI

I'l.ATFOIIM, CONSTltlKU AITIIOlt.

11 V 1T8

my own lips,

support JtJrcekinndgc and lane at the next I residential election. I cheerfully render my own testimony to the truth of that statement. Applause. It might have been more prudent to defer this declaration until after a free conference with those friends

regiments out ot true ISoutli-

em men. 1 shah never believe, until the fact is placed I beyond dispute, by a count of our votes, that the pcoi pie of the slaveholding States will be willing to write their own voluntary relinquishment of their constitutional 'righto, or present themselves, all naked and yoked, before tho Black Republican chiefs, asking : 4 1 1 rrr T. O . . . . U W A 1

in Kentucky with whom I have heretofore acted, and r ., , c , . , . ' &. , , , , , ' iv i no; the people of mv section know their rights, and by whom my past career has been so generously sus- , ' .' ' , ., mi i i i i- ,i . , -vi . v ti j- P . , l they will maintain them. Ihey have asked for nothtained. Others mav watch the direction of the pop-;. J ., , , . -. ,. ... , . , , . . . , . , ' 1 i ing more than mere and plain rights, and my word for ular current, who wish to swim on its tide to a haven .. , .,i . . ,, , Ai .. l-,-- ,i c ! it, they will be contented with nothing less. At any ot success mv ambition is not for place or prefer-, ' A .,, , . ., . , , J . v : ,. , ., ., 1 , . e 1 rate, they will never come up, voluntan y, to be shorn ment; it rises no higher than the simple performance '. , , , j ' , ' , . . ,. , I i t i ; i c of privileges which belong to them as equals in this of dutv, and I leave consequences to take care of 1 . . .f iL 1 . x, ,' 7, . .. . ., ... .. common partnership, or throw these awav by a manithemselves. 1 have no hesitation as to the position it c . , 1 ,. .i i, i .i i , . . . . i t i ii i testation of lndillerence to the result when their lights becomes me, at this crisis, to assume; and 1 should ., , , T.. ,, , , .i,,, ,.f , ' ' t. ., , ',. .. r are flatly challenged. It thev do, how will the history be recreant to my own sense ot the obligation a free 1 u i i ti ' t! v i i v" . , . Tii ii j of such a result read Thus: It being charged by citizen owes to his country, were I not, when called, 7 , ,, . ., , , ,, c v- i . , . tl " t , t Mr. Douglas that the slaveholder from Kentucky can upon, to advance to the occupancy of that position , , ,f,. , . ., ... v, ', i i t i l c) only hold his property in the common territory ot the with the firmness and alacrity which import a union of lT .. , 0. . 1 J . c ., , r . j . ., , 1 . i . t United States by permission of those who first enter my conscience and action upon the line ot conduct I ., n, s t ... . , , ' . 1 l the lerntory and institute order under a government moan nnrsiie. J , . . e ..

r, ., 1 T .,. .,, ., . . established by Congress, this question was referred to rJpntlpmpn. I am familiar with the noints linnn , . ... F '.. .( . . . .

which the De

volve principl

Congress and

elsewhere

X I ; hpi-ifnplrv hprep t lvpplriniH iro ho,Ti lo adiwntfi

mocrats have failed to agree. .They in-, . c ., , ' , ' v . v. ,.

es which 1 have frequently discussed, in ! ' ., , rr, ,.,

. t .11 i 1 1 nili.t ipiu n.i i , ju uuu j-cuiiiiiiug ,iiu Lino 111 Uliic liuiil out of it on the stump, at home, and 1 o.' J -,. .

r . . ,.. i I .1 ,i j. . otner states, ii came io pass, in tins state oi tne case,

time upon those principles. I made, in 1856, a some'

j that Kentucky discarded her own son and abandoned

iv, a sumc- , . v1. .i ,i .r l

, . , , i i j l . i i. l i t T "er uivu ji"ine, mm iuua. oil nui ou uiviu uaiiiivnus

, ... . ., ' ' c , . . and clothed hereelf in sackcloth and ashes, and went chanan, it he were the exponent of the doctrine of e ,., . ... . , Knn,0,. ,;' ,.,.;

squatter sovereignty, and J. C. Fremont, as the expo-! ,. , ,, ,. , 1 ' 1 . . C . 1 . ' 1 . ; ti iinn pan. 4 HTH'IPJITI.

nent of the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso, I would

not toss up a copper for choice. I was then discussing the Cincinnati platform before the people, and I then saw the ambiguity which made it Janus-faced--pre-senting one view to the North and another to the South. Southern Democrats did not believe me. They denounced my suspicions as the effect of partisan rancor. I told them, then, that Mr. Douglas did not entertain the same view of the platform they did, and that, one day or another, they would find all the evils which could flow from such a persistence in maintaining party lines at the expense of important principles, would "come Lome to roost." I must be permitted to say, I did not anticipate the rupture Which occurred at Charleston, and was consummated at Baltimore. It may sever the ties which bound the Democratic party together, North and South, but it is a homage to principle. It exhibits the Democrats who have nominated John C. Breckinr dge as at last awa-

unclean, ", " unclean.

I tell you, my countrymen, there is not a slaveholdO. .1 V IT "II .1 .1 ' .1 T,. 'II

ing state in tins union win up ims ruing, jx is rony to believe it. When the voice of Kentucky shall be heard upon the gale, her mountains will be vocal and her valleys will ring with the cry of Union and Equality Equality forever. She cannot be persuaded to indifference. Her freemen are intelligent and spirited, and they understand what this proposition means. They know the Supreme Court has decided that Congress has no constitutional power to pass a law prohibiting them from goin upon the public domain with their property, as the citizen of a free State goes there with his property. They will stand by that decision, for we all argued that such was the law of our case before the court decided it The Republicans may say they care nothing for the decision, and will not re

spect the court; we believe they will not be able to execute their threats, and we will, at any rate, wait for them to attempt it. But when Mr. Douglas

i it... a.i ...i.:,.i. r nin...i i ii

KUUIUI' LU luc iiii.ia niui,n i ii(ii: ouiii;u iu tuciii a liiw , , r i ri t sand times, and as ready. to prefer sound principles to! !?reach,e8 u?. ,bat' I,0l,Sh Congress cannot bar us

unsound party associations.

I render them the tribute of my respect for the choice they have made, aud I think their country will do the same. Fellow citizens, the rupture of the Democratic party has taken place essentially on the same ground upon which the Whig party went to pieces, and which afterwards rent the American party in twain. The same cause severed tho relations of the church, North and South. It is not astonishing that under its force, though last of all, the tower of Democracy has fallen. It is evidence, which a considerate people will regard, that here is a wide dill'erence of principle of car

dinal, vital principle that no force ot partv attrae

tion can withstand, and which demands a settlement,

final and satisfactory

Gentlemen, after the Whig party went to pieces in 1852, because Northern Whigs "spit upon the plat

form" which pronounced in favor of the principles of .1 ' P . .1 r .1 .. A . 1 1 " . i

ino compromises oi low auer me jiihuirhu pany severed in 1 856, because Northern Americans would not yield this most baneful theme of "anti-slavery agi

tation I tried in vain, in the last speech 1 made in

Congress, to evade this issue, by creating some other

upon which to divide parties, until time could cure the evils which would flow from this agitation. I appealed to the conservative North to come to the rescue, and to refuse to follow the Republican leaders into the new campaign, under banners which had no inscription upon their folds but antagonism to the slaveholding States of this Union, but anathemas against slaveholders, and an affirmance of the doctrine of an irrepressible conflict between systems, until a homogencousness of labor should be established "everywhere through the land. I appealed in vain. Satisfied that I could no longer render my country service in the exising condition of things, discontented to stand, as I had stood for four years, between the Democratic and Republican parties, while both of them occupied

wrong positions upon tnis great question wiim.ii in-

from the Territories, it can create an instrumentality

which can and will keep us out, or will render our property useless if we do go in, our people are not so stupid as to swallow what he offers, nor will they stand silently y and see him make a state of case which will enable him to say hereafter they did accept his

doctrine as the true measure ot their rights. Ah ! but inethinks I hear some one ask why we will not stand by Bell and Everett, under their patriotic motto, " The Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of the laws? " I answer for myself: because a question has been raised among us which their platform does not solve, and which would leave us open

to misinterpretation and future misrepresentation. If

the Douglas Democrats, who advocate squatter sovereignty, finding themselves in a minority, shall fuse with the Bell and Everett men to defeat Breckinridge, their only object in doing so will be, to give an appearance to the result as having decided the question, on

which Mr. Breckinridge is put up, against our view of

the equality to which our people are entitled in the Territories. Under ordinary circumstances, Bell and Everett would make a most respectable combination under ordinary circumstances, the opposition to Democracy would sustain it even on the broad generality which the Constitutional Union party has launched as sufficient and beat for the times. But Charleston and Baltimore have made extraordinary circumstances, which summons us all to action, in our own behalf, in another direction. Of a winter's night I would prefer to listen to the old farmer by his fireside, but if news came that wolves were in the folds, threatening havoc among tho sheep of our pastures, I would leave the fireside and the farmer, and follow to the field the young, vigorous, brave leader, whose energies and known character afforded me the hope that he would protect my property and have a proper care for my interests. I liave thought much of this question on which Mr. Douglas essavs to win in the coming canvass. He

Mr. Marshall No. My principles as an American

are as warmly cherished by me as they ever were, and I shall always believe that the best interests of my country would have been subserved by adopting an amendment of our naturalization laws, and limiting suffrage to citizenship everywhere. I cannot make the law by myself, and other men, calling themselves Americans, have abandoned that organization. I am just as much an American this moment as I have ever been, and all the time, as an Americau, I advocated, in Congress and out of Congress, the identical doctrines I advocate here this night. I have a hope that all true Americans who, like me, love the Union, will go with me now as they have done heretofore, and, by giving to Mr. Breckinridge a hearty and unequivocal support, will lend a helping hand to the maintenance of principles which lie at the very base of the peace and union of these States. - It may be proper, since I have been thus questioned, that I should say here that I am not seeking to enter the Democratic organization. I differ with Mr. Breckinridge upon many questions, perhaps, of public policy, but there are many upon which we agree. I have great confidence in his sense of honor; in his integrity as a gentleman ; in his circumspection and caution as a statesman; in his freedom from the im

pulse of sudden passion; in his deep devotion to the Union, and his clear perceptions of the right and wrong whenever he shall be called to choose between them. I have marked him closely in the high office he has filled under this Administration. It has not required him to do much, but there is a very high merit, and it requires high qualifications, in an elevated station, to do nothing and do it handsomely. Little men always fail at this, because they cannot repress their desire to have a hand in the Administration. I feel that the existing condition of affairs has imposed upon Mr. Breckinridge a still more responsible position than any to which he has yet been called by the people. His candidacy for the Presidency asserts the principles, on the part of all the States, of the equal participancy of all the people of the States in the common domain, bought by their common blood and treasure. It asserts tho constitutional rights of minorities ; it represses the domination of mere numbers; it enforces the great principles advocated by Clay and Webster, ami of which I have been an humble advocate ever since 1850. Therefore, I sustain his nomination; and while I take nothing back of my own views on other questions while 1 ask nothing, and expect nothing, in the event of his success, (for he has political friends nearer to him than I am, who are better qualified, and have higher claims than I)

1 say here that, m the contest as it is shaped at present, he will have no friend more ardent than I shall be, or whose plume will be more forward in the fight for the assurance of that safety of the Union which has been so highly jeoparded by pressing forward in this crisis those illogical points winch distinguish from first to last the unfortunate doctrine of " squatter sovereignty." They will never be accepted by the Southern people. Southern Democrats have always denied their existence in their platform, and they now stand ready to resist them. I extend the hand of true fellowship in the contest; I will do my best to sustain the rights which our people enjoy under the Constitution. I am no extremist ; I love the Union ; I will fight for the Union ; I would die for the Union ; but I will never betray the equal rights of our people in the Union. , Soberly and quietly I say to you that I love my wife and children, who are now in my Kentucky home; but rather would I see them turned into the woods to live among the forests of our hills, without

shelter from the storm, than to enjoy the comforts Democratic electoral States, with five other States in j

Fellow-Citizens: Mv voice is from the North. I

propose to say some plain words for that portion of

the JNorth who in this unhappy, I trust temporary, di

vision of the Democratic party, have felt it their duty, calmly and without reproach to others, but firmly, to

take the side ot nationality, ot the Constitution and the Union. We have looked through the history of parties in our common country, and we find that the empire of Democracy, under which these States have

grown from thirteen to thirty-three popular sovereign

ties, and have unitedly become second to no power of

the earth, has been sustained only by the union ot the Northern and Southern Democracy. We find that this united Southern and Northern Democracy has

achieved every acquisition of Territory, maintained successfully every war, and accomplished every measure of great national policy that has marked tlie progress of this people in the grand march of popular empire ; and we have also found that this Union was in danger only when the opponents of the Democratic party have been permitted briefly to hold power by the temporary division of the Northern and Southern Democracy. And therefore it is that the North is here with the South in this movement, which is to de

cide tho question to whom that national flag belongs, which is broad enough to cover with its ample folds

this whole Union. j

We have just come up from the divided councils of;

the .Democratic party at .Baltimore, lor the first time since 1828 we have failed to unite upon men and measures. But I have no purpose or desire to censure or condemn.""' I mean to utter no words of reproach or bitterness in this canvass. Opposed as we are now, let all Democrats treat each other not as vindictive enemies, but as hoping again to be friends. I take the fact just as it is a divided Democratic party, and not the less divided no matter who or what is to blame for

it; and out of this division the country must calmly select the materials for a reconstruction of the Demo

cratic party on a sure foundation of the Union, a just interpretation of the Constitution, and an entire abne

gation ot all sectionalism and all negroism. Y e think

it will be found in this national nomination of Breckin

ridge and Lane, whose names, and antecedents and

localities are the highest pledges of devotion to the

Union, and 1 trust it will vet be found in the reunion

of the Democracy before the election.

And now permit me to point out to you the line ot

division which clearly marks the two positions of the Democratic party touching the platform. I believe in platforms as essential to the very existence of politic al

faith. The Democratic party has alwavs relied on

platforms since the resolutions of '98, and it has never before refused to explain its platforms when subject to

a double construction. Is not that the present condi

tion of the Cincinnati platform, which both conventions have adopted entire ? In that connection, I may say here to-night that I made all of the Cincinnati platform which bears on this question, and therefore I think I understand it, and have some little right to expound it. And I affirm of that platform that it has not, nowhere in it or under it, by line, or sentence, or word, or construction, or possible conception, one particle of " squatter sovereignty." j

" Squatter sovereignty, it it have any meaning, means that the Legislature of a newly organized Territory, at its first session, can prohibit and destroy the right of the citizens of all the Slates to come into that Territory or live in that Territory with their slave ; property. But the Cincinnati platform denies that power in the most explicit terms. Commencing with ! the severance of eight of the Democratic electoral j States from the convention at Charleston, the division!

has been consummated at Baltimore by the seventeen

which now surround them, if these are to be purchased

by the surrender and sacrifice of the constitutional rights of our people. I am among the humblest of that people. I hope to die on the soil of Kentucky, but I would prefer to be an exile from my native country than to live upon it, deprived of my birthright. We will have equality. I tell you our people will have equality under the Constitution, and no human power, no party ties, no political watchwords, no personal resentments or disappointments, will make them abandon their own rights. Mr. Webster embraced this whole question ten years ago. His speech in the Senate in 1850 in twenty lines contains all we have ever advanced upon this question of territorial sovereignty and of protection to property in the Ter

ritories. 1 keep that speech always Dy me, and l will close these remarks by reading to you what the great

vnlvnd the eniinHr.v nf the. States and the ennalitv of! would tell us slavery is tlie creature of municipal law,!

the people of the States 1 withdrew from the pub-,' and whenever it goes bevond the municipal law "tlie lie councils, and returned to the more quiet walks of' shackles of the slave fall, and he stands as free as his my profession. But I have been an anxious spectator I master." Take this case : I am Georgia planter, and of the signs of the times. Your action at Charleston i want to go from Savannah to Texas changing my and at Baltimore is so definitive that I see it must ) residence from one slaveholding State to another. I change the issues of the approaching canvass. j embark my wife, children, and servants on an AmeriTl,.i .iiincilnn ,,,, '., . j. .(!.,: ..!...: ...! i. i can vojnaI. and I am soon mora than a marine leairue

."k ........ . ...... .. ,1., i . i a ui: ii ii lie DUiuuuu, aim un ' " - . r- . , . , ' . ,

iwnn p nt hold spc-tinn fiml thnmalve in oni r i trom tlie snore on Hie man seas wnere do municipal ; erniueuu aiic xeiiuunm Ajv-iniuie a wimr

i i . i ii . i . . . . i l :l rl'l . 1. ! .. ...... ..... 1... 1 ll .. lhnn imMfinhml v Pyin irrMl. Tliiir tinvo nn TViU'Pr

IU W I irV VflllS. 1UDIT ID IMSblllllg IMll UIO 1Uli I.11G llll.ivii J" , " J y.-

of mv country : under me the deck of an American not gives by that Congress. her must act within . ,. . .. ... .. ., 1 , 1 . . . . 1 .1 v.. '

man of New England said m 1850 on these questions.

Where he stood in that speech I stand now, and it is interesting to observe how far Northern sentiment has advanced, how steadily Southern sentiment has settled upon the true ground. Wo will not be diverted from it. We will yet maintain it firmly and with success. The step in the true direction is to rally upon Breck

inridge and Lane, without regard to party. Mr. Marshall then read the following extract from Mr. Webster's speech: " The argument Is, that by possibility it may become necessary to pass laws respecting slavery, if slavery shall ever exist there. Now, I suppose that the amendment proper to be introduced for the purpose which has been signified by the gentlemen who have spoken would be to strike out those words, and to say that the Territorial Legislature shall have no authority to pass any law for establishing or excluding slavery in the Territory, It appears to me that this is the upshot of the whole matter. That is very proper, because I take it that the meaning of the whole is that this question shall be left to the people of tin'. State to decide after

It oecomes a sovereignty uy auimssiou luw me union on the same footing with the original States. It may then be a question for the people themselves to decide, because I take it to be clear that it is a municipal question. It is a question for the decision of the peo

ple in their State sovereignty, ana mere may oe a

propriety there certainly is no impropriety in ex-

nlnrlinir tho pxercise. of anv 1 lower in the Territorial

Government for the establishment or exclusion of

cl 1 --

" It has been advanced that these people, while a Territory, have a right to do anything and everything that belongs to the rights of man. I cannot conceive

that they have. "We have always gone upon the ground that these Territorial governments were in a stato of pupilage,

under the protection or patronage of the general govmi m T ri . I .!

demand the exercise of all their prudence and all

their patriotism. I understand the matter thus : After the delegates met at Charleston, the committee on resolutions was appointed, and in that committee it was proposed to re-announeo the Cincinnati platform of 1856 as the platform of principles maintained by tlie Democratic party, But a part of that committee, representing constituencies in the slaveholding States, asked that this announcement should be accompanied by cxplana'ory resolutions to this purport : t 1. That Congress has no power to abolish slavery

in the Territoric. Second, That the territorial legisi i ii-, i . f

IHUIIT3 1HLS no

ship. Is my slave fire ? According to this new-fan

gled doctrine, he is ; and the Black Republican will nay be is. for he denim the protection of the flag. But will Mr. Douglas say he is free ? I presume not. What protects my right ? The flag. Why and how ? Because, by fiction of law, it floats over the territory (the deck) of my country. If this be so, will not that flag protect me in the same property when it floats over the actual territory of my country, where there is no municiial law to prohibit me from leing there

itn mv save c i say ii win, ana l would be etitd to

i i i i" : i : v:- ,

ir has no power to abolish slavery in aoy U mtorj-,! " ' '" m wrong.

nor to prohi bit tlie introduction oi slaves therein; nor ' J " ' . any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any now- Voice? on the border of the crowd " Hurrah for; cr to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves' Douglas!" " Douglas forever! j by any legislation whatever. j J(r. Marshall Ah ! my good friends, stand np and ! " 2. fiejiolced. That it is the duty of the Federal ' hear sound argument, and don't attempt to escape by j government to protect, whey necessary, the right of' hurrah. It looks like sti king to your man in spite j persons and property on the high seas, in the Territo-' of your principles. j ries. or wherever else its constitutional authority ex-j Voices again Hurrah for Douglas ! j 1nds- . . ! Mr. Marshall WeU, there is one fact I will call; " 3. Rfsolrerf, That when the people of a Territory j your attention to: You Dooglas men who would dis-j come to make their State constitution which is an act j turb us are to-oight where you will be in November ! of sovereignty their admission into the Union should j on the outtxHe o; ike eratnd. Immense laughter and not depend on the question whether they choose that applause. ,., .. - j

the limits of the constitution granted them by Con

gress, or else their acts become void. 1 he people under the Territorial government are not a sovereignty; they do not constitute a sovereignty, and do not possess any of the rights incident to sovereignty. They are, if you so pleased to denominate it, in a state of inchoate government and sovereignty. If we well consider this question upon the ground of our practice during the last half century, I think we will find one way of disposing of it. It is our duty to provide for the people of the Territory a government to keep tlie peace, to secure their property; to assign to them a subordinate legislative autliority; to assign to them a subordinate judicial autlwrity; to see that the protection of their persons and the security of their property are all regularlv provided for ; and to maintain them in that state until they grow into sufficient importance, in point of population, to be admitted into the Union as a State upon the same footing with the original States. It seems to me that that is all our duty. J shall most readily concur in anything which tends to the performance of that duty. But I cannot go into anv general d' uion about tlie rights of the people while under the Territorial covernment, and do more than they are permitted to do by that constitntiou which creates a government over them." j

whole or in part, forming what their delegates be- j lieved to be a National Democratic convention, and making the only nominations that can secure the votes j of those seventeen reliable States, without which the i Democratic party cannot even hope for success. The i other convention has been left without a single entire j State remaining in it having an assured, if, indeed, a hopeful, Democratic electoral vote reduced to less j than two-thirds of the electoral colleges, even with all ;

their admitted substitutes without constituencies, and compelled to make their nomination only by the entire abandonment of the common law of Democratic conventions, which never before went into a Presidential contest without a two-thirds vote for their nominees. In fact, therefore, there is no nomination binding on

Democrats according to the uniform usages of the ;

party. ' ' This disruption, so momentous, so painful to every i lover of his country, must be for some cause. And : what is that cause '? A division, in part, on platform, i but more especially a division on candidates, and aj forced and unjust reorganization of the convention to" exclude legitimate and admit unauthorized delegates j without Democratic constituencies, in order to change j the majority. !

In the preamble of the Cincinnati platform " the j Democracy place their trust in the discriminating justice of the American people." The North, in the con- ' vention at Charleston and at Baltimore, pei-sistently j denied to the South this " discriminating justice," by; refusing to make that explanation of its' misinterpreted platform, wherein the South has a plain right to know ' what the North means, touching the equal rights of, tho South in the common Territory. j That has been the dividing difficulty on the plat- j form ; and as to the candidate, the forced numerical j majority in that convention insisted upon having one i man and no other, while all the rest were ready to ' unite on any other terms. After announcing " non- i

interference" by Congress as the rule, it fixes the pre-:

cise time when alone, and not before, the people ot a Territory can intervene and act upon slavery ; and that is, when forming a constitution for a State. It sums up the whole power of the Territories over' slaverv thus :

" Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of the Territories, (not the Legislature,) whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States." Thus it is defined that the right of the people of a Territory to settle the status of slavery begins only when they begin to form a constitution and not before. That is the Cincinnati platform, clear and palpable, and in nowise liable justly to a double-faced construction. And it fixes this sovereign power of destroying or inquiring property, at the time of making a constitution, for a very sound reason. It is thij; "A Territorial Legislature can raise no revenues from the people, but is itself merely the paid agent and servant i of the general government, and therefore can have no power to take property from citizens, because it has no power to compensate them for taking away their , property. When it becomes a State it has that sovereign power and may. justly exercise it, because it will provide, as in all State constitutions, that private property shall not be taken away without adequate compensation. But, plain as the Cincinnati platform is, it has been subject to misinterpretation, and squatter sovereignty, instead of popular torereiqntii, has been attempted to;

be inteqiolated in it. This was one common sense j

reason why it should be fairly explained. Moreover, when the Cincinnati platform was made, there was a ju-!

dicial question not decided as to the precise time when the people of a Territory should determine the slaverv

question for themselves under the constitution. Now

the supreme Court, since the adoption of the Cincin-,

nxti platform, bas decided that the power does not be-i gin till the constitution begins. Hem e, the single : question for the convention at Charleston was, j

whether they would make an explicit declaration on :

this point explanatory of the true intent and meaning, North and South, of the Cincinnati platform in this re-, spect. '

Tell me, was not that a just and reasonable demand,' that it should be explained and put upon record beyond doubt or cavil r Such is the uniform practice in all declarations of principles in religion or politics That was all that was required touching this question " of Territorial "power " over " the individual property " rights of the settlers in a Territory before it becomes a State ; and how can any fair-minded man say that it ought to be kept open to a double construction North and South ? As honest men, we could not preach the same doctrines from the same text in the same church, and, therefore, the Democratic party, when reconstructing its platform to place a candidate upon it, were bound to declare just what they meant by " popular sovereignty" as 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, susceptible of many constructions, adopted after the severance of the Convention, and after the double nominations were made, and at the very close of their session, when it was too late to harmonize. A resolution which, if it have any meaning, seems to utterly renounce the very squatter sovereignty on which they made the division, and recognizes the 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 a sort of indirection, taken away their whole argument ujKiii "popular sovereignty" in the Territories. But before they did that, they not only adhered to their Charleston refusal to explain in tho platform what they meant by " squatter sovereignty," but they so reconstructed their Convention

by the exclusion ot sovereign "states mid original delegates, that the necessity was put upon tlie seventeen retiring States which held the assured Democraticelectoral votes, to proclaim their national creed in unmistakable terms, having but one meaning both North and South. This they have done in a separate Convention. They reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform with three explanatory propositions, and to those three propositions let ine, somewhat in detail, call your candid attention. They read as follows : "First. That the government of a Territory, organized by Congress, is provisional and temporary,' and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their properly in the Territory without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation. . "Second. That it is the duly 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 authority extends. " Third. That when the settlers in a territory having an adequate population, form a State constitution, the right ot sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Union whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery." These are all the propositions touching the interpretation of the Cincinnati 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 territory, free from all risk that their rights of person or property, when they get there, shall be destroyed or impaired by either congressional or territorial legislation. Who will gainsay this? It is only our doctrine of nonintervention against the rights of property extended to the territorial legislature as well as to Congress. Who will say that the property rights of citizens settling there from other States may be interfered with and destroyed by a 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 a territorial legislature ? To that question this proposition says yes. Who says

nay? The kecond fhoposution affirms the duty of the General Government, in all its departments, to protec when necessary, the rights of persons and property wherever its constitutional authority extends. And is not that an univei-sal principle of good government? Who says that the Federal Government shall not protect persons and property wherever it has authority to do so under the Constitution ? Does it affirm anything more than that it is the duty of Government to exercise its constitutional functions in the protection of persons and property ? And if the power which the Government is called upon to exercise be only, as in this case, constitutional power, who can deny the right and justice of its exercise ? It calls for no slave code, no special legislation of Congress, no tariff of protection for slave labor. . It makes no discrimination whatever in favor of slavery. If slave labor in the Territories be property, then it is to be protected like all other 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 a Democrat refuse to affirm that distinctive principle which divides the country upon this issue ? The THiiti) pitoroamoN is the same in substance as the resolution 1 have quoted from the Cincinnati platform. It makes popular sovereignty begin with tlie act of making a constitution. It sets up popular sovereignty against a vague, imaginary power in a territorial legislature to destroy property without compensation; and it affirms the only rule of self-government which, under our constitutions and laws, can ap- ' ply to communities or States. And tell me, now, if you can, where does "popular sovereignty " exist under our American institutions but in the people of the States ? Where is there such a monstrous political creation to be found as a territorial legislature with an imaginary inherent power, outside of the institutions of the States, outside of the organizations of the Federal Government, and subsisting upon itself? A higher law in a territorial legislature to confiscate property than exists in Congress or in all the departments of the General Government ? i The very statement of this extraordinary assumption of power proves that it cannot exist ; and it is unreasonable to demand that such a power to destroy and confiscate property of all the citizens of all the States, when settling in the common territory, shall be explicitly disclaimed by the Democratic party in its platform ? Is it any better, nay is it as just as the Republican doctrine of absolute prohibition by Congress ? Of what avail is the doctrine of congressional non-intervention, if it is followed by territorial proliibition ? Better a congressional law that prevents the slaveowner going into a Territory to settle with his property, than a territorial law that robs him of his property as soon as he lias incari-ed the risk and expense of removing there. What, then, is the practical difference between the two doctrines? The Republicans insist upon congressional prohibition. The "squatter sovereignty" sets up territorial prohibition. One puts the A ilmot proviso in Congress, and the other puts it in the Territorial Legislature. There is the whole of the argument. Now let Democrats of the North be honest and square with tlie South on this point The North, by spinning cotton, has immentely enhanced the value of liave labor to the South. They want to know what their rights with that labor are to be if they go with it into the Territories adapted to it. We cannot deny eqtial right to all citizen to settle with their property in the common territory. We must repudiate principle, and repudiate the decisions of the Supreme Conrt, to denv it. Neither can we dey thai slave labor is