Newspaper Page Text
i.'-r. tuuxHuKisrs sake-“but you right, teuieast GO ahead-”
VOLUME 6.
THE INDEPENDENT BLADE,
PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING
T. W- BOLTON,
EDITOR * FKOFKIKTOK
TERMS :
For one year, if paid in advance $2 00
“ “ “ if not paid in advance 250
For six months, if paid in advance 1 00
•* “ “ if not paid in advance 125
No paper will be discontinued until all anvma
jjes are paid, unless at the option of the proprietor.
Platform.of llie Democratic Party
adopted in Committee at the Charleston
Convention by a vote of Seventeen to Six
tern Stales — re-affirmed unanimously by
the Convention of Twenty one Seetding
States at Baltimore, and endorsed by
Breekinridye and Lane.
Resolved , That the platform adopted liv
tlie Democratic paitv at Cincinnati lie at’
firmed, with the following explanatory reso
lotions:
Ist, Resolved, That the government of
a Territory, organized by an act of Con
gress, is provisional and temporary, anil
ilnring its existence, all citizens of the Uni
ted States have an equal right lo settle with
their property in the Territory without
rights either of person oi property being
destroyed or impaired by congressional or
territorial legislation.
Sit — R-fUTihsd-'fhni it is the duty of the
Jetleral Government in nil its departments
to protect., when necessary, the rights of
persons and property in the Territories, and
wherever else its constitutional authority
extends.
3d. Resolved , That wlier. th* settlers in
a Territory, having an adequate population,
from a State Constitution, the right of sover
e'gnlv commences, aiuHieing consummated
hv admission into the Union, they stand on
an eijtial footing with the people of other
States —and the State thus organized ought
to be admitted into the Federal Union,
whether its constitution prohibits or recog
nizes the institution of slavery.
4th. Resolved, That the democratic par
ty are in favor of the acquisition of the
Island of Cuba on sm-h terms as shall be
honorable to ourselves and just lo Sp in, at
the earliest practicable moment.
sth. Resolved , That the enactment of
State Legislatures to defeat the faithful ex- ’
eV-mion of the fugitive slave law are hostile
in character, subversive of the constitution,
and revolutionary in their ellect.
oth. Resolved , That the democracy of
the United Stabs recognizes’ it as the im
perative duty of ihis government to protect
the naturalized citizen in all his rights,
whethei at home or in foreign lands, to the
same extent as its native horn citizens.
And whereas one of the greatest necessi- I
ties of the age, in a political, commercial,
postal and military point of view, is a speedy
communication between the Pacific and
Atlantic coasts, therefore, he it.
Resolved , That the democratic party do
hereby pledge themselves to use every
means in their power to secure the passage
of some bill, to the extent of the constitu
tional authority of Congress, for the consti
tution of a Pacific i ail road from the Missis
sippi river to the Pacific ocean, at the ear
liest practicable moment.
Acceptance of Hon. John C Breck
inridye of the Nomination for the Presi
dency.
Washington Crrv, July 6, 1860..
Deau Siii : I have your letter of the 23d
inst.,by which J am officially informed of my
nomination for the office ot President of the
United States hy the Democratic N: tional
Convention lately assembled at llaltimoie.
The circumstances of this nomination will
justify me in referring to its personal aspect.
I have not sought, norjjesired to he placed
before the country for the office of President.
When my name was presented to thb con
vention at Charleston it was withdrawn by
a friend in obedience to inv expressed wish
es. Mv views had not changed when the
convention re assembled at Baltimore, and
when I heard of the differences which oc
curred there,my indisposition to be connect
ed prominently with the canvass, was con
firmed ami expressed to many friends.
Without discussing the occurrences which
preceded the nominal ions and which are, or
*oon will be, well understood by the country,
I have only to say that I approved, as just
and necessary to the preservation of the
national organization, ami the sacred rights
of representation, the action of the Conven
tion over which you continued to preside ;
and thus approving it, and having resolved
to sustain it, I feel that it does not become
me to select the position I shall occupy, nor
to shrink from the responsibilities of the
post to which I have been assigned. Ac
cordingly I accept the nomination from a
aense of public duty, and as I think unin
fluencedl in Hny degree, by the allurements
character, implied by’the action of the con
vention, will always be gratefully remember
ed, and it is but just also to my fellings, to
express gratification at the association of my
panje with that of iny friend Gen. Lane,a pat
riot and a soldier, whpse great services in the
field and in council entitle him to the great-
The resolutions adopted by the conven
tion have my cordial approval. They are
just to all parts of the Union, to all our citi
zens, native and naturalized, and tbcj form
a noble policy for any administration.
The questions touching the rights of per j
sons and property, which have of late been
much discussed, find in these resolutions a
constitutional solution. Our Union is a con- j
federacy of equal, sovereign States for the
purposes enumerated in the federal ooiißii*gj
lotion. Whatever the common g ov u>'*M§jiii§
in trust for all the
jovnl equally by each, il controls the-Yttl'-I
ritories in trust for all the States. Nofmuji
less than sovereignty can destroy or impatH
the rights of persons or property. The
territorial governments are subordinate and
tempoary, not sovereign, hence they cannot
destroy or impair the rights of persons or
property. While they continue to be terri
tories they are under tbe control of Con
gress ; but tbe constitution no where confers|
on any branch of the federal government the!
power to discriminate against the rights of
the Stales or I lie property of their citizens
in the territories. It follows that the citizens
<rf ali the States may enter the Territories
of the Union with their property —of what
ever kind —and enjoy it during (lie territo
rial condition without let or hiriderance
either hv Congress or by tbe subordinate
erniiicnts, and from the equality of ihe
Stale-. Indeed, they are essential to that
c. |iinl ii s’ which is and ever has been the vital j
principle of our roiififttattririm Union. They
have been settled legislatively, settled judi
cially, and are sustnineii bv right and reason.
They rest on the rock of the constitution. —
They will preserve the constitution—they
will preserve the Union.
It is idle to attempt lo smother these great,
issues or to misrepresent them by the use. of I
partisan phi uses, which are misleading and J
delusive. The people will look beneath
such expressions as “ intervention, emigres- J
s : onal slave code,” and the like, and will
penetrate to the real questions involved.— j
The friends of constitutional equality do not
ami never did demand a congressional slave I
code, in regard lo properly in theTerritotiegjj|
1 hey hold the doctrine of non-intei
■be-Congress nr liv a territorial Lcgislaiain |
• ll.cl |o c-t ahli-ll ..I pieliUt MM
they assert, (fortified by the liigtseSf jtfi®|
tribunal in the Union) the plain duty of u ;*
federal government in all its
lo secure when necessary, to the citizens OFI
all the Stales, (lie enjoyment of their prop- J
ei tv in tlie common Territories, as also every
wlmre else within its jurisdiction. The only j
logical answer to this would seem to he to j
claim sovereign power for the Territories OjgJ
lo deny that the constitution recogntfjjjgH
properly in the service of negro slaves,or to J
deny ihat such property can exist. ,-g
Inexorable logic, which works its steady
way through clouds and passion, cgjltpels us
to meet the issue. There is noefijftbi..faid- j
die ground. Already the signs mj) and. t- \
a fanatical and s.ii h den.--
ilmt under the by nss? ot'ne,
law, slave property
I think it will be imposeiWOSrn Undid
mind to discover hostility to lb* Union, Or a
taint of sectionalismin the resolution* adapt
ed by the convention. The constitution and
l lie Union repose on tire equality of the
Slates, which lies like a broad foundation
underneath our whole political structure.—
As I construe them the resolutions simply
assert this equality. They demand noth
ing for any State or section that is not j
cheerfully conceded to all the rest.. It ,iej
well to remember that tbe chief disorder*
which have offlicted our country have gro*ijji
out of I lie violation of State equality ; a bad
that as long as this great principle has be erfq
respected, we have been blessed with har-sj
inony and peace. Nor will it be easy to j
persuade the country that the resolutions 1
are sectional which command the ■jMM-'irt ;
of the majority of the States, U’ ’
proved by the bone and body of itbtßolti j
democracy, and by a vast mass of coitlOna
live opinion everywhere, without regard'H
party.
It has been necessary, more than once joJ
our history, to pause and solninly assert tJbgJ
true character of this government. A mflje!
inorable instance occured in the struggle!
which ended the civil revolution of 1800.7—J
The republicans of that day, like the deifiS-'l
cracv of this, were stigmatized asdisunion
ists but they nobly conducted the contest
under Ihe constitution, and saved our politi
cal system. By a-like constitutional strug
le i; is intended now to assert and establish
the equality of the States as the only basis
of union and peace. When tjris object, so
of the whole country jPjflKt together with
the bonds of reurrboiiHMfwpf U.vtU-r Umi.
and to impel it onward in ,- •
The Constitution and the equally of u •
HEWNAN, GA„ FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1860.
IState|4 These are symbols of everlasting
liawgsLet these be the rallying cries of
ttifeoliat this canvass will he conduct
jMjjMHt4utncor, and that temperate argil
the place of hot words and
HHHPptcnsntions. Above all, I veii
gpMbly to hope that Divine l’rovi
■lpriiom we owe our origin, our
iftl our prosperity, will continue
beloved country against all
gtrHHn and domestic. I am, with
your
John C. Bueckiniuimik.
l’residenl of the Demo
('^■hition.
;?EEH|or e c. mobley, esq,.,
itn'ftii HEr Breekinridye and Lone Meet',
to, immGra nril/e, Meriwether County,
0,1 Wig 1° your call, w hen it. is to vindi-
JgjpohVa cause as you have espoused.
MHpvocuting a Platform of principles
■Bpw regard, and have regarded ever
e I entered 1 lie political Hrena. as true
exposition of our Constitutional Rights.—
But having belonged to the American, alias ,
Opposition party of Georgia, I ask the priv
Ifljlge of this meeting (if briefly stating my
in this Presidential contest and mv
for it. I feel it a duty that I owe to
mivself and the party with which 1 have
hitherto acted. I feel it also a duty that I
Pfive to those, who have stood shoulder U-T.
shoulder with me in our opposition to the
great National Democratic Party, and who
life here to day as well as scattered liroad-
Hp over Georgia, the same valiant soldiers
in„the defence of our constitutional rights.
t under the American banner, |
ieve, are all actuated in our
■kinridge and Lane, by the
ml the same reasons. There
ition of those motives and
1 am gow about to make, 1
liing to all those who have
e in former struggles.
h me; and shall positively
leaver to demonstrate, ;that
i Lo the whole Opposition
ia, and ought to contrdHßpH
-outest. 1 do not i
iny dictatorial spirit tdlnHCj
uml of them nothing tnmfiE
fact* and nrginneiits as tbjM
•con firm t tfotr of Tl iif pajJHH
I here I would remaGHHH
ami waging pefttbnal wars
If I freely concede to one and
in the heat of discusSion and
I feel for the cause that baa
issemblage together to-day, 1
liing seemingly harsh, I now
ten tion of wounding any gen
lgs or wantonly tampering
Vnd, in this connection, 1
WOgld further state, that when I use the
■Mi Douglasi.tes, 1 do not mean to include
fiereby those South, wdio are inclined to
Kvor the nomination of Judge Douglas, but
■un mid bis Northern adherents, who have
HToroughly imbibed his heresies, and who
mow advocate them in tlieir fullness and en-,
“ieety. With these explanations, l sjiall
proceed, hoping tliat no one will nlisunder
.stand me on this occasion.
■L Americanism was murdered in its swad-
Bling clothes, and the “ lloaling art ” of
1” ‘led lo inspire its lifeless corpse
ion. Therefore, it forming no
contest, can lay no claim to our
to-day. But in the campaign
hich this Americanism received
muds, that parly clearly reveal
ity to “ Popular Sovereignty,”
edge “to abide by and main
ting laws upon the subject of
ining the Compromise ineas
>,) as a final and conclusive set
at subject in spirit and in sub
by further staling that, “ es
rmitting any expression of opin
power of Congress to establish
avery in any Territory; it ra
dio National Council that Con
rot to legislate upon the sub
y within the Territory of the.
i.” How “ ought Congress not
’ Why to “ establish or pro
ve, it is clearly perceivable that
I Council intended to plant the
ie principles of the Utah and
Bills. Presuming that no man
t fact. I will not now elabor
is in the process of the discus
>liticnl issues of the day, I will
i to aiialize the principles of
My object now is, to hunt out
jsWiat principles Georgia and tiio South, as
by the two parties here, aro
committed to ; and, therefore, what princi
ples they ought now avow. In the;campaign
of 1066, the very next year following, the
whole fight iB Georgia was made upon
iDouglasism amlThe Kansas Bill. It i* truer
Uiere were other minor issues involved in
■g campaign, but that was tlie vital issue,
Eid the only issue then involved, that ,has
“lived down to this hour. The American
||*rty met at Macon, in State Convention,
afid adopted the following resolution as the
exponent of their creed ; “ The Territory of
the United States we recognize as tlie erm
moii property of all the States as co-equal
sovereignties, and as such, open to settle
ment by (the eitizens of the Slates with their
propertyjas matter of right; am) that no
power resides, either in Congress or the
(Territorial Legislature, or the people of the
: Territories, while a Territory, to exclude
from settlement in any Territory any por
! tion of the citizens of this Republic with
their property, legally held in ihe State*
front which they emigrate. We repudiate,
therefore, the doctrine commonly called
squatter sovereignty in the Territories.”
The doctrine, couched in this resolution,
to me tsntayiouia jojlip principles
ejbrimed in the 1 flat form of the Constitu
tional Democratic party. It is true that
they do not insist upon “protection” ex
press Iv ; yet, I think they do hy implica
tion. For that resolution declares that none
of the powers enumerated therein could ex
clude us. Then, in the event, they did at
tempt it, if such was the basis and tlie end
upon, which and for which the general Gov
eminent was foimetl, as declared by that
resolution, then it is no government of law,
and constitution hut of usurpation or impo
tent-)’, if through its agency, weakness or
want of interposition lo prevent it, we are
thus unjustly excluded from this common
domain. Dunce, it is undeniable that, occu
pying this position, that tlieir whole opposi
tion to the National .Democratic party point
ed at and centered upon DouglHsistn or.
squatter sovereignty. It formed the Sebas
uqiol L which we leveled all our avtillei v.
Around it was the thundering din of battle;
and upon it hung the fate of parties. We
labored liard in that contest to make the
Democratic party responsible for the acts,
heiesi.es ami opinions of Judge Douglas and
his followers; and they labored equally as
hard to exhonorate Ihe party from such irn -
’ potations ; at the same time plating a con
struction upon the Kansas Bill ami Cincin
nati Platform unexceptional within itself.—
To such liighls was ihe public mind aroused
that Judge Douglas’ reply to the lion. Geo.
S. Houston, of Ala., in w hich reply he claim
ed the Kansas Bill the same, m principle, as
the Conmißltlise measure!s of 1860, ami <le
dared hfPobject to be, by tliat Bill, to wipe
out “ a geographical line—a dividing line
between free territory and slave territory ”
1—“ to iuTistitntq ”in lieu thereof” the great
wMllslitutional principle ” that was to “ pre-
Ksrv* arid penjetuate the fundamental priii
s'f*. • y-dki'-r^
HKiiOy through Georgia.’ To tll*t swoie
BRw-'whs ‘ heralded the reply of the lion.
PRlfijl. imjkjcharilson to Archibald Williams,
in whichijje #t(ded that, “the Kansas Ne
braska act w m based upon the true princi
ples of the tniistiiiitiou in recognizing the
right of each Stale and Territory, prepara
tory to its admission into the Union, to form
and regulatedheir domestic institutions in
their own wav.”
Bear with me, then, while I minutely, vet
blieflv, notice these past issues. We then
opposed, in the campaign of 1856, the Kan
sas Bill, and therefore tlie Cincinnati Plat
form, (for they are one and the same in prin
ciple,) on this question, upon the following
grounds:
Ist. Jqdge Douglas said that it contained
squatter sovereignty. As I have intimated,
npKedSouthern Democrat defended Judge
position, but denied that it was
fegitmjately dedncable from the Kansas BiH.
Hence, yon perceive that there was’no disa
greement between a Southern ’Democrat and
an American of Oppositionist in principle ;
blit the division that did exist was owing tp
the fact, that the Democrat supported the
Kansas Bill, believing that it did not contain
squatter sovereignty, and the Oppositionist
refused to support it, because he believed il
did—w hile both alike refused it. We ob
jected also to a Southern endorsement of the
Bill, because its language was ambiguous,
and (Jid admit of two constructions. Blit
we were answered that, that ambiguity con
tained a “juditial question,” which was to
he decided by the Supreme Court. I always
understood it as a judicial question and ap
prehend the country so understood it. It
w-aa so declared in Congress and out of Con
gress. Therefore, those who now desire
-tftff Cincinnati Platform, pure and aimple,
and without any explanation ; and therefore
rnziritain tliat the Democratic party always,
denied that it was susceptible of two con
strut tions, misrepresent facts, as will ineon
jirovertihly appear hy reference to the rec
ord. But let us enquire why it was made a
“judicial question i” Why Judge Douglas
said that tlie people of a territory, while a
territory, could exclude slavery therefrom,
and possessed the solo power to regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way.
The South would not subscribe to the doc
! trine. Hence, if each wing of the party had
insisted upon its own theory, it would have
inevitably disrupted the party then. But,
in order to prevent disruption aruf preserve
harmony, each wing ignored its own theory,
made tlie language of the Bill admit of each
one’s views; and then, by way of further
compromise, made it A “judicial question ”
To’tSTfccided by the Supreme Court of the
United State* ; and, by solemn contract and
solemn agreement, each wing bound itself
to abide that decision, whatever it might be,
and whether pro. or con. Hence, wherever
that decision should be made this diversity
of opinion was to cease, and the party from
thenceforth was to be a unit in sentiment
j and opinio® exactly upon and according to
that decision. That decision, whenever made,
; was- to be an end and inality of all contro
versy thereon within the ranks of the Demo
cratic party. Hence, all those that claim
r hat Judge Douglas is consistent, or charge
tliAt Southern Democrats ruined him at the
■dm up in ’56 ami
sr are ignorant of
overlook it. But j
o prove the fact, !
view and theory
e division in the
‘vlfttCßt~prrrtTcs vsf
sition to Douglas
tore directly eon
centrated in the campaign of 1857. Then
the whole matter was fully developed, and
the whole country fully understood it. The
decision had been made, the constitution
expounded ami the contract ready to be ful
ly consummated. And to learn how near
the South was a unity in sentiment and
opinion, no sooner was thnt decision made,
(familiarly known as the Dred Scott Decis
ion,) than the Oppositlbrt party of Georgia
and elsewhere planted themselves upon it,
and declared it to he a true exposition of
our constitutional rights. The Democratic
party, according to tlieir plighted faith and
solemn contract, were pledged to accept and
abide what the Opposition party declared
was a true exposition of our constitutional
rights, ami, therefore, the two parties were
necessarily a perfect unity in sentiment bis
this leading am! vital Issue. But Judge
Douglas refused to'tfliide this decision. ‘He
began to indulge ip technicalities ; began to
quibble; began to indulge in subtilty and
nice distinctions'to evade at least with the
color of excuse his solemn agreement. So
full of sophistry and scholastic fineness and
every other thing that constitutes a quibble,
was his meager defence that we read it with
both pain and contempt-, and conclude that
lie is hotter fitted for that age, in which met
aphysical jargon bewildered all phylosophy
and bamboozled all theology limn ihe nine
teen th century. II ere, in the fulness cf his ]
conceit and tlie baseness of his design, he
owes Iris fall and his ruin. But the Demo
cratic pnrtyj-i|i,thiit campaign and at that
lime, would not repudiate bin:. He bail not
! abandoned, the parly. He lmd not then
j appeared asTflSormitlable adversary to bas
flc-tbii Jr-1 .m fiEHftsjaay v U had % not.
ilicii igiiudiwtyl tire DreicScott Decision.—
But ill pardies Soutli endorsed that decision;
and again ihe issue between the parties was
engwuifeted by this Douglas element. The
democratic, party met us upon the Kansas
Bill and Cincinnati Platform, triumphantly
proclaiming that neither of them contained
squatter-sovereignty; for, according to them,
the people of a Territory must regulate their
domestic institutions in tlieir own wav, sub
jeet. to the Constitution of the United States;
and tee Supreme Court had decided I.lihl,
that (.’destitution was irreconcilable with
squatter sovereignty. \Ve pled again, in
answer to this, the posilion of the Douglaa
ites, and demanded a repudiation of them
or else maintained that tlie party to which
they belonged was responsible for tlieir acts
and liere'ies. In justification of this posi
tion we pointed to J.-.sc Buchanan’s course
in Kansas, and charged thaCßobt. J. Walk
er, acting under instructions, was carrying
out Douglasisin in Kansas.
that campaign is fully set forth in tlie foU
lowing resolution adopted by us in State
Convention : A
“ That we have seen nothing which we
regard as new in Walker’s course in Kansas,
ami that the principles maintained, and the
policy advised, are identical with the princi
ples set fqrth in the Kansas Bill as advocat
ed by the National Democracy, with the
Cincinnati Platform and Mr. Buchanan’s
letter of acceptance.”
We hat already seen why the Southern
Democrat and an Oppositionist differed
upon the Kansas Bill and Cincinnati Plat
lorm. Then let us now examine hew and
why upon Walker’s course in
Sod ‘the following resolution in
matter, adopted by the
I jjpaooratUjpglj:of Georgia in State Con
veßti|Mp*fcjßHrbodving their position :
! ‘ the inaugural address of
Gov. WalHPhs prescribing the terms on
should admit Kansas into
the artd in attempting to dictate the
submimbU'of their constitution for ratifica
tion, and to what class of persons constitutes
a presumptuous interference in matters
and that the same address, in expressing his
support,that side of the question is a gross
departure from the principles of non-inter
vention and lien trailty which were establish
ed l>y the Kansas Bill; and this convention I
bus full confidence that Mr. Buchanan will J
manifest his fidelitt* tW the principles that!
carried him into offieienjji recaliin£^|j||j|
lienee, there was no diversity of opinion j
about. Walker’s course—alUperties denounc
ed him and his acts—bdl while we regarded
it as eminating iioan Mr. Buchanan, an'd as
the fruit of Donglasism, they were content
NUMBER 1.
I those principles by repudiating Walker’s
course. Hence, they denied and we affirm
ed that lie was acting under Buchanan’s
| instructions. Therefore, the issue was not
| concerning the correctness of Walker’s
j course, but about the fact whether or not
Mr. Buchanan gave the instructions. And
\ now, why did Mr. Buchanan give these in
structions? Because this same refractory,
Douglas element was thundering its dentm
! ciations against tlie Leeompton Constitution,
j threatening to oppose it and its supporters,
and to disrupt the party. Mr. Buchanan,
you recollect, even consulted Judge Doug
las to ascertain if those “instructions” met
his full approbation. Hence, it was not of
Me-. 44hcIisr' own free will nnd accord
that he gave these instructions, Snt in defer
ence to Judge Douglas, or else whv consult
him. Then he caused these “instructions”
to be given in order to preserve tlie party
and secure harmony, and is properly re
sposible for Walker’s conduct; sot he not
only endorsed it, but opposed the admission
of Kansas because they were not carried out
in full and to tlie letter. Then he caused
fully and solely the divison that existed in
the South in the campaign of 1857, and en
girded tlie issues that divided the parties
here, lie stood in Georgia, in tliat cam
paign, in the unenviable attitude of a friend
less man, while the denunciations of both
parties of his policy and principles foretold
pining confidence, and growing hatred, and
sliijhorn opppsitiou throughout the South.—
But let U 8 now enter the campaign of 1859,
and see why the South was not united.—
When Kansas asked for admission, tinder
the Leeompton Constitution, and the Presi
dent recommended, and the great bulk of
the party advocated her admission under
thnt constitution, Judge Douglas and his
followers opposed it, and by that opposition,
defeated the design of the party. Not con
tent with tliat, he proclaimed war against
the administration, and endeavored to hold
it up to the ridicule of the country. It was
the potency and influence of this element
that engendered the English Bill. It was
formed but to pander lo him and his follow
ers, and thereby reunite the dissevered
Democracy. Then, again this petulant and
contran element reared its perfideous crest
but to distract I lie National Democratic par
ty or else bring it to humiliating terms. —
From a misguided sense of its importance, a
reckless spirit and party tyrany it began to
manifest, in the most alarming mode, a set
tlgd delei inimitiwn to rule or min thejiartjr.
But tins ?i uit oTlKi* element was ;bi issue
and ihe theme of the two parties lust tear.
Douglas’ eulogies had ceased in the South ;
she no longer regarded him as a friend ; and
he was spurned by all parties. Even candi
dates for Congress found it necessary to
denounce biin, and pledge tlie people that
they would not vote for him. The Opnosi
tiou party, with an e\e to this disruption,-
adopted a platform, last year, insisting upon
“ protection ;” culled it from the Dred Scott
Decision, and formed it tlie same in theory
and doctrine as the platform of the Consti
tutional Democratic party of to day. The
Democratic party made no war upon that
platform. They conceded its justness, equi
ty and constitutionality. Now, to show you
that I do not misrepresent the parties, I have
an article in the Augusta Constitutionalist
of the Bth of Augu't, 1859, which reads as
follows:
1 “ The constitution of tbe United State*
to the same protection as property of any
other description; and tlie Democratic party
therefore does not deny the constitutional
power of Congress to legislate for the pro
tection of slave property in the Territories.”
He concludes this article by especially com
mending the.following extract from a recent
letter of Humphry Marshall of Kentucky:
“Asa practical statesman in the piesent
condition of public sentiment as to slavery,
I would say that the South bas tbe deepest in
terest in tranquilizing the public mind on the
whole series of questions connected with slhv
ry.and therefore,! would say that we wait for
the occasion, which shall prove by the judg
ment of a court of competent jurisdiction
that the remedy is wanting to ensure the
practical enjoyment of the slave-holders
rigths in the Territories ; but whenever that
fact appears, I would apply to Congress, if
necessary, to afford that remidy. and I would
agitate session after session and Congress
after Congress until I obtained my rights
and until l could embody the popular senti
ment lo do the Southern people justice un
der the Constitution.” No wonder Mr.
Marshall is now a constitutional Democrat
and doing zealous labor for Breckinridge
and Lane, for no better definition of tbeir
policy and principles could to day be given,
than is contained in this extract from bis
letter and “especially commended ” last year
by the Augusta Constitutionalist. But I
i need not refer alone to this paper, to show
J where both parties stood. Your own imme
diate representative in Congress, the Hon.
Fhem and told us to stand by them in 1860
and we would all be together. J. J. Jones
took about the same position in the eight
Congressional Dislriot, and in the adjoining
District, Ala., the contest between Mr. Judge
and Mr. Clopton appeared to he, which could
I prove himself the best proteotionist aud th*