Newspaper Page Text
S0T
|
t so much. biavery rests upon great truths, which
t enn never be sueceesfnbv assailed by reason <r
tint). my vis Ws Upon It might be different fi
the* are. Ilia known to you and the tvmntry, .. ..i, Ml I
the polioy of noN intervention, as established at the argument, it has grown Stronger ill the inliitis of
instance of the South, was no favorite one ot mine.
At to my position upon it, and the doctrine now re
vived, when they were original and open questions,
aa well aa my present views, I will cite yon to an ex
fraot of a speech made by me lo Augusta, in July
last, on taking final leave of my constituents. I
could not re-auto them more clearly or more briefly.
In speaking of, and reviewing tills matter I then
said: I 7 «t I • X’V-l £» j
" And aa yon may all know, it, (non-intervention)
came sho-t Of what 1 wished. It was, in my viutv,
not the foil measure of our rights, that required, in
mylindgment. ths euaotment by Congress, of all
Bredfallawa for the protuetion of slave property in
the territories, so loog as the territorial condition
lasted.
jurisdiction, and that if we conceded the power to
protect, we aocesaarily conceded with it tho power
to prohibit. This, by no means, followed, in my
judgment Hut such was tho prevailing opinion.—
And it was not uutil it was well ascertained, that a
large majority of the South would not nsk for,
or even v*t* Ibr Congressional protection, that
those or us who wore tor it yielded to non-inter-
ventiou. because, though it camo short of our wish-
os, yet it contained no sacrifice of principle—had
nothing aggressive in It. and secured, for all practi
cal purposes, what was wantad—that is, the unre
stricted right of expansion over the common public
do at sin, as inclination,convenience or necessity may
require on the part of our people.
“ 'I hu» tlie settlement wait made—thus the record
stands, and l. v it I am still willing to stand, as it was
tally up t» ti e demands ot tho South, through her
reprossatiitiv.-s at tho time, though not up to my
own i and, as by it, the right of expansion to the ex
tent of population and capacity is amply secured."
In this you clearly perceive what I think of the
peeper oourwe now to be taken on the same subject.
While, in the beginning of Ibis controversy, 1 was
not favorable to tho policy adopted, yet I finally
S elded my assent. It was yielded to th- South—to
e prevailing sentiment ot my own section. Hut
It sever would have been yielded, if I bad seen that
r of our important
to our safety orL
remit from Its operations. I
willing to abide by it, if z caw in its praotical work
any of our important rights, or soy principle essen
tial to our safety or security, could, by possibility,
remit from Its operations. Nor would I now bt
willing to abide by it, if l saw io its praotical work-
lags any serious injury 10 the South likely to arise
from it Ail parties iu the South, alter (tho settle-
moot was made, gave it the sanction of their acqoi-
tnen the more it ha.-, been disc lined, and it will still
grow Jtrooger as the discussion proceeds and time
rolls on. Truthis omnipotent, and must prevail.—
We have only in maintain the Irntli with firmness,
and wield it aright. Our system rests upon an im
pregnable basis,that esn and will defy all assaults
lrumniila.nl. My gri ali -t n|>prehrii>ii>ii is from
eau-es within—tin-re li'-s tin-greatest danger We
havd grown luxuriant iu the exuberaneeof our well
being and unp.ir ill. I. J prosperity.
Tin re is a tendency every where, not only st the
North, but at the Mouth, to strife, dissension, disor
der and anarchy. It is against this tendency that
the sober minded and reflecting men everywhere,
should now be called upon to guard.
My opinion, then, is, that delegates ought to be
sent to the adjourned convention at Batltimore-H
Tho demand made at Charleston by the seceders
ought not to bo insisted upon. Harmony being to-
(Mod on this point a nomination esn doubtlesa 1m
made of > .ni. m u. «l.. m ths party avasywhaia eon
support, with the tame zeal, and the same ardor with
which they entered aud waged the contest in 1836,
when the same principles were involved. I
If, in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility
not rest upon ns, lot oor Wii m tMtf ■
blame. Let there be no cause for casting censure
at our door. If, iu the cud, the great National Dem
ocratic party—the [strong ligament, which has
long bound and held the Union r
C hcy and controlled its destinii
■vaso oft. n looked n ill. a hop-i that seldom tailed,
as the only party North on which to rely, in the
most trying hours when CpnsHtnttonal rights were in
peril, let U not be said of us,inthe midst of the disas
ters that msy ensue.‘you did it!' In any and every
event, let' not the reproach of Punic faith rest upon
our name. If everything else has logo down, let
our untarnished honor, sit least, survive the wreck.
a t iPY II QTirDflVVO
ALEX. II. STEPHENS.
t was made, gave it tho sanction of their acqui
escence, if not cordial approyal What, then, has
occurred since to cause us to change oor position in
relation to hi Is itthst those of the North, who
> from 1803 to I8», did mf-
j us in 1834, in taking off the
I Congressional restriction of 1820, m as to have
stood bv us iu the struggle
forward* stand nobly by u
old Congressional restrict!
complete non-intervention throughout the leugth
and breadth ot the public domain 1 Was this hero,
ism on their pm. in adhering to principle, at the
hazard and peril of their polities! lives ana fortunes,
the eauie of present complaint 1 This cannot be,
for never was on act of Congrssi so generally and
nnsnlmoaily hailed with delight, at the South, as
this was—I mean the Kansas Nebraska Act of IBM.
Jt was uot only endorsed by oil parties in Georgia,
but every one wha did not agree to its just provi
slons. upon the subject ot slavery, was declared to
he unfit to hold party association* with any party
not hostile to the interests of the South. What,
then, is-tb* causeof complaint now! Wherein has
this polioy worked any injury to.-the South, or
wherein Is it likely to work any T
The only cause of complaint I have heard is, that
neo-iatarvaction, as eatabliahed in 1B30, and carried
out in IBM, is not understood at the North as it isat
the South—that, while we hold thah in leaving “the
whole subject whore tho Constitution and the great
principles of self-government place It,” the common
Territories art to remain open for settlement by
Souther* people, with their slaves, until otherwise
provided by a Sate Constitution, the friends sod
.supporters of (he same doctrine at the North main-
taut that, under it, the people of an organized Ter-
ritoiy eon protect or exclude slave property befoie
*ho formation of a State Constitution. This opini
ion, or construction of theirs, is what it commonlv
dlibbed “squatter sovereignly." Upon (bit point of
dlffhmee In construction of what are “the great
principles of self-government." under the Constltu-
ties of the United States, a great deal has been
said and written.
We have heard Jt In the social circle, in the fo
rum, on the hustings, srd in the balls of legislation
The newspaper* have literally groaned with disserts-
lions nn it. Pamphlets have been published for and
against the respective aides. Congress has spent
mouths in its aUcqmion, aud may spend aa many
years aa they have months, without arriving at anv
more definite or satislketory conclusion in relation
to it than Milton** perplexed spirits did upon the ab
utnise questions on whloh they heldeucli high and
prolonged debate when they reasoned—
••Of Providence, foreknowiudge. will, and fate:
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute,
And found no end in wandering mazes lost."
It is not myqmrpose now to enter the list of these
disputants. My own opinions upon thesnbb-ct are
known; and it is equally known that this difference
of opinion, or cnnsiraction.lsno new thing in tin
history of this subject. Those who hold the doe
trine that tha people of the Territories, according to
the great principle of aelf government, under the
Constitution of the United States, can exclude slave
ry by Territorial low. and regulate slave property as
ail other property, held the same views they now
do, when we agreed with them to stand nn those
terms. This fact is also historical. The South held,
that under the Constitution, the Territorial Legisla
lure* could not exclude slavery—that this required
set of sovereignty to do. Some gentlemen of the
North held, as (bey now do, that the Territorial Leg-
(stature* could control slav* property as absolutely
a* they could any other kind of property, tod, by a
ixcluaaala
system of law*, could virtually excluds slavery from
anxiugwgthum, nr (prevent its introduction, U they
ehoea.
That point of difference it wot agreed, by both
sides, to leave to the Court* to settle There was no
cheat,or swindle, or fraud, or double-dealing, in it.
It wai a fair, honorable and Constitutional adjust
meat of the difference. No assertion or declaration
by Congress, one way or the other, oould have af
fected the question In tha least degree; for if the
pracipSH
king in the- rights of their constituents,
ild the doe- This course requires no Sacrifice of principle. The
proposed Richmond Convention, if it shall be found
necessary to hold it eon be held after, as well as be
fore tho Baltimore Convention, and, 1 think, with
clearer liebta for its guidance. If this policy shall
meet with any considerable opposition in Georgia, I
would suggest that a convention of the party be
called by the proper authority, that th-sy may take
Immediate action on the subject. For myself, no
party or other necessity ran ever induce me to give
my assent to any declaration of principles which af
firms or admits, directly or hy necessary implica
tion, that there is any rightful power, anywhere, to
exclude slave property from any portion of the pub
lic domain, (open for settlement to others,) exrept
within the limits of a sovereign State, and by her
anthority. This plain principle of eqqality and
even-handed justice should not be bartered away,
or even pnt in jeopardy, for the sake of party har-'
mony or party success I frill be no party to such s
people, set
cording
at," nnat
to "fhe great principle of self-
i them of it. And if Congress did not have, or
doss not have, the power to exclude slavery from a
Territory, at those on our side contended and still
coot end they have not- then they could not and did
not confer it apart tho Territorial Legislatures We
of the South held that Congress had not the power
to exclada, and oould not delegate • power they did
not possess—pf«o, that the people had not the power
to exclude under the Constitution, and therefore th<
mutual agreement was to take the subject out ol
Congress, and leave the question of the power of
the people where the Constitution had Pf"*** M '
with the Courts. Tti* !• tlie wnole of it. Thenun
tlon In dispute it's judicial one, and no act of Co
grass, nor ary resolution of any party conventio
can in any way affect it, noleta we first abandon tl
position of non-intervention by Congress..
Bat it teems 'exoeedinghntrtnge tq me, that the
people of the South, should, at this late day, begin
to find fault with this Northern construction, aa it is
termed—especially since the decision of the So
Convention, and particularly the able, logical and
eloquent speech of the lion. Win. L. Y*no.oy,.of
Alabama. It was, decidedly* the strongest «rgu
meat I have seen «n his side ot the question, jlqt
ita greatest power was shewn in it* complete an
swer to itself. Never did a man, with greater dear
raws; demonstrate that “.squatter sovereignty.” the
bxg-bi .tr of the day. is not in the Kansas bill, all
that has been said to the contrary, notwithstanding
This be pnt beyond the [tower of refutation. But
be stopped nM there—be went on, and by retareaco
to the decision of the Supreme Court alluded to. he
showed, 'conclusively, id a mast pointed and thrill
ing cltmax, that this most frightful doctrine oouW
* of “squatter sovereignty” is net In the Cincin
nati Platform. Thon, why should we of the South
now complain of nosbissUrreatusn. or ask a change
of platfitnn 7 - . _• ' . -
What else bsTo we .to do but to insist upon our
allies to stand to their agreement7 Would it not
have been tmteh more natural to look for flinching
on their side than on ours ? Why should we desire
or want aey other platform of principles than that
adopted *: Cincinnati ? If those who stood with ua
on It in the contest of tS3€, are willing still to stand
on it. why should we not be equally willing I For
my life I oannot sec, unless we are determined to
have a quarrel with the north anyhow on general sc
count. If so, in behalf of ronunon sense, let Us put
it upon tenabiegroundl These are abundant For
our own character’s-ask*, let asmoke it upon the
secretaire acts of our enemies, rather than any sup
* * ‘ 1 —i of oor friends, who have stood
the maintainsnee of the just and constitutional
Letter from Gov. Brown.
Millxdoxtillx, May IS, 18*0.
Gentlemen i—I have the honor to acknowledge ths
receipt of your communication of the 3th inst.—
Official engagements of a character which I did not
feet at liberty to disregard, have prevented my earl
ier reply.
You refer to the discord which prevailed in the
derao-ratic convention which lately assembled in
Charleston, and say that you "are filled with painful
forebodings at the prospect of the democratic party
being slaughtered iu the house of its friends."—
Should such be the case, I do not hesitate to express
the belief that the personal ambition of a few lead
ers and their individual animosity toward each
other, will have done more to produce that unfor
tunate result than all other causes together.
Notwithstanding the diversity of opinion which
exists between the two great sections of our coun
try upon the slavery question, the masses of the
democratic party. North and South, uncontrolled by
ambitions leaders are, in my opinion, ready to unite aow, to divide onr people upon questions involving
and stand together upon a common constitutional
platform which will do equal justice to each section
and protect the rights of all. When the time hon
ored flag of the party is in danger of being swept
from the matt head of the old democratic ship, the
pstriotie masses of the party, North and South,
who have stood shoulder to shoulder in so
many hotly contested battles—sympathised, with
each other in defeat, and rejoiced together in the
hour of triumph—will rally to the rescue, and as it
fails, gather up Us drooping folds, replace it in its
position and again unfurl it to the breeze in proud
defisncoofits enemies. •
It may be eaid that] the conduct of those who as
sembled at Charleston was not such as tojustify this
prediction. Should the same delegates from the
Northern and Southern States reassemble in Balti
more, after a month of cool reflection and consulta
tion with tkcpeople, they might have less difiiculty
than they hid it Charleston, in Agreeing npon a
sound platform. I have no word of rebuke tor the
Southern delegates whoeithcr secededfrom, orre-
mained in the convention. Doubtless they were
alike actuated by patriotic motives. If those who
remained in the convention were in error, the error
was pardonable, ns they doubtless believed they
were sacrificing no one of the principles heretofore
maintained by the party, wh ile they were influenced
by an ardent desire to preservo, if possible, ita in-
tegrity and ita harmouy. rflhe seceders erred, they
erred upon the side of the South rand, as a South
ern righta man. I am prepared to pardon the error,
as I entertain no doubt that the course pursued by
the seceding delegates, will have the final effect ot
securing to us a sounder platform and a safer nom-
me* than we otherwise would have obtained. - .
As all are advised, the difficulty grew oat of the
refusal of the majority of the convention to adopt
the resolution proposed by the majority report ol
the committee on resolutions, which was intended
to affirm the doctrine of Congressional protection to
slavery in the territories; though it is a little re
markable that neither slaves, nor slave property, are
mentioned in that resolution, only as they may be
embraced in the general term propsrty.
As an originah abstract question, I entertain no
doubt that the people of the South have the same
ngbt to demand of Congress, should it become ne-
Letter from Hod. R, Toombs.
Washikotos, D. C., May 1(5, I860.
Gentlemen : Your letter of the 5th inst. wasduly
received, and would have been before replied to,
but for tho fact that I have signed nn address con
taining my opinions somewhat at largo npon the
questions which yon have submitted to me, and
which addren I expected would have been publish
ed before this time ; that having been delayed, in
th- meantime I thought it best to give you a brief
**f fur« looked with interest, hut, without appre
hension, upon the proceedings of the late conven
tion at Charleston. I see in those proceedings un
mistakable evidence of the steady advance of sound
constitutional principles. Perhaps the time may
not have eotnx for the attainment of the full meas
ure of our constitutional rights; it may not have
been prudent on the part of the representatives of
seventeen States tohavo sanctioned and presented
os much truth on the slavery issue as is contained in
what is commonly called tho Majority platform, but
when it was thus sanctioned, approved and present
ed to the convention, it was well to stand by and
, especially against tho platform of the mi
nority. The seceding delegates did this with manly
firmness, and I approve their action. From tho bc.-t
information I have been able to obtain, I believethe
majority platform was not only acceptable to a ma
jority of the States, but also to a majority of the del
agates. it their votes could have been taken per cap
ita. Iftltia be so, it ought not to have been defeated
either by accident, want of foresightor contrivance.
It is asserted, that the democratic party hitherto,
have affirmed the principle of non intervention by
Congress with slavery, both in tb« States and Ter
ritories; but none pretend that it has over asserted
the right of intervention against slavery by the set
tler* upon the public domain either before or after a
territorial government has been granted to them by
Congress. Bat this is in' truth the real doctrine held
by the minority. They desire to interpolate the
psrty creed with it—to make it its rule of action.—
We can not l.idu this great fact by simply shut
ting onr own eyes. The, friends of this political
opinion have defended.it with abi ity and zeal, have
tendered us the issue and demanded its acceptance;
it can no longer be avoided either with safety or
honor. I accept it, and will giro it tlio same deter
mined opposition with which* I have ever met it,
whenever and wherever presented. ’* i
After the seceding delegates left the convention,
it is understood a proposition was msdoky the dele-
ates from New York to the delegates front some of
he Southorn State*, who did not secede, which
might lead to a satisfactory adjustment of these dif-
feremws. Under this new state of fact* hcearring
after the secession, and perhaps in consequenoe.
thereof.in my opinion, the seceding delegates ought
to meet with the convention at Baltimore, and on-
denvor to obtain snch an adjustment. Thisisdueto will not. I snppi— .
thealtered state of -facts—to the magnitude of the commuting the party to the doctrine ot Congres
consequenoes invojyed in the straggle-due to their protection is a new plank proposed to be in-
confederates who agreed with them in principle, serted in the Platform. which has not heretofore
hut who did not secede. If they should then fail, composed any part ot tU The question of the ezpe-
they at least may expect to secure the co-operation <h«ney «f incorporating this resolution In the plat-
of the delegate* of other democratic States in such form, at present. wf^eupon *5, , ifjt uod and w “<'
further measures as they may deem necessary for 1
Letter from L W L H. Underwood.: To the Democratic Party of Georgia.
Wasson\ -
Gentlemen : Yonrs of the 3th inst. was received ‘ he < hnirman, have directed mo to moke, to the
this morning, and I embrace the very earliest mo- ‘ ~
mi nt to reply to you candidly and promptly.
Without expressing any opinion as to the proprie
ty of tli e secession of the delegates from eight of the
Southern States, at the time it was made, from the
National Democratic Convention st Charleston. I
am free to say, that the people of ihe whole south
should sustain them. A refusal to do so, would be
backing down from ibepositioo taken by our liepre-
sentatives, in the past; we have been much injured
by tliis course, and I would avoid it now. Many of
our delegates have been long and favorably known
to the people; they have been trusted often, and
have never betrayed their constituents. They were
on the ground; tlieir action looks to the protection
of onr rights and honor, and their cause was ta
ken in reference to that object, and it is no time
issues so momentous. While I thus unconditiona -
ly sustain those who seceded from the Convention, I
have no condemnation to make in reference to those
who differed from the seceding delegates, and saw
proper to remain in the Convention.
It is a matter of extreme regret, that oar own dele
gation differed as to the propriety of the course to bo
pursued. It would have been best, bad all acted to
gether ; but tbiais no cause of strife in the party in
our own State, if wisdom and moderation prevail.—
Men are so constituted, thst all will not tliinu and
act alike. I hope all agree flu principle, and when
the time for definite action shall come, nil will act
together.
At this particular juncture in public affairs, it is til-
important that onr rights should be clearly defined,
and our equal rights to carry our property into the
common territories, tnd hold it there, free from con
fiscation, or exclusion by "non-action” or "unfriend
ly legislation," aud “that the only power which Con
gress possesses over the subject of slavery iu the
territories, is the power coupled with the duty of
guarding and protecting the owner in his rights,
acknowledged and affirmed. The dear and unmi
takablo operation of this principle, abnegates the
doctrine thst slavery only exists where there is a.fcv
cal law establishing it. Nine Uu ths of dispeople of
Georgia require the Assertion of these principles free
from any equivocation or double face, and f doubt
not our delegation ore prepared to contend for them
and maintain them.
It it equally important that a candidate should be
nominated, whose previous political life, affords a
sure guaranty that these principles will be enforced
in his administration. ‘
It ia-well known to the country that Senator Dong
las, a prominent candidate for President, entertains
views diametrically opposite to what I have stated
to be essential to the preservation of our rights ahd
equality. That being so, his friends in the conven
tion refused toincorporate those principles in tbe
platform, and thus presented to the representatives
of the convention from the Southern States, a series
er species of property.
Whether this right can ever beef any practical
advantage or utility, to the Sooth, so long as we re
main iu the Union, is quite soother question. Those
who deny the right, and rotate all legislation for the
majority.
made, it is pot probable that the Northern Repre
sentatives will either concede the right, or agree to
the' enactments necessary to giv« it practical effi
ciency. Is it wise, therefore, for the Sonth to make
this issue till a case arises where the lefpslation is
Territory'may enact law* which will render legisla
tion by Congress absolutely necessary for the pro-
~ the Territories.
tection of slave property iu the Territories. Fur tbe
present, we might say. “ Bnfficient unto the day is
the evil thereof." Should the emergency at any
mate consequence and only remedy—secession from
the Union, in esse it is refused.
I understand the doctrine of the National Demo
cratic Party, iu the last Presidential election, and
tbe dootrine of the Democratic Party of Georgia, iu
every copveution and canvass lor * number of y ea> s
past, to have been non-mtmrntion If Congress. Jt
ill not. I suppose, be denied, that the resolution
to Strengthen, or to'advance the policy sought to be
established. Truth is often slangbtered in th
he house
and by tho hands of its own friends, by a struggle
for that which it impossible to day,' but which may
easily be accomplished to-morrow. It is sometimes
wise to accept a part of our just rights, if we can
have the Tesidoe unimpaired and uncomproinitted
by the partial installment; bat nothing can justify*
voluntary surrender of principles indispensable to
thesafetyand honorof tho State. It is true, wears
surrounded with danger—bat, I do not concur ia
tbe.opimon that thedanger to the Union is even one
of nrfr greatest perils- V“ r greaUsl danger,to day,
is, that Use Union Kill service the Conslstnlson. The
great body of your enemies iu the North, who hate
the Constitution, and daily tramp’e it under tjieir
feet, profess an .ardent attachment to the Union—
and. I doubt not, feel such attachment for « union
unrestrained by tho Constitution. Do not mistake
your rostdanger—it is great. Look to tbe preserva
tion of your rights. The Union bus more friends
than yon have, and will last at least as Jong as Us con
tinuance will-be compatible, with your safety.
I am,’very truly, your friend and fellow-citizen,
* It TOOMBS.
To Messrs. Robert Coilins,* John J. Gresham, and
others. * ' „
hr ni so steadfastly in to many Constitutional Strug
giro. In the ntrao of patriotism and honor, let ui
not uiske it upon a point which may io direotlv tub -
jedt n* to the . l..r K o of breooh of plighted faith —
Whatever may befall us, let us ever he found, by
Iriand or foe,** good as our word. These are my
views, frinkly aad earnestly given. ■
Tbe great question, then. is. shall we stand hy our
pnncimC*. or slialt wc. cutting loose from our tno(jr.
Inga where we have been safety anchored so many
vmtX, launch out again into naknown sms. upon
new and perilous adventures, under tbe guide aud
pilotage of those who prove. thXBiselvel to have no
mnr* fixednrti of purpose or stability as to object*
or policy than tho shifiling winds by which we shall
he driven? Let this question be decided' by thq
convention, and dacided with that wisdom. coulMSp.
and forecast which become statesmen aud patriot*.
A* for nil - It'. I Co— say, whatever may be the course
of tati r.' ex cits, my judgment ip thU eri*U Is, that
w« should stand by our principles "through woe" as
well aa “through weak and maintain them in good
faith, now »pd always, if need be. until they, we,
and tho Rcpnblic.'peri»b together In a common ruin.
I a ee no Injury that can possibly arise to u» from
them—not even ft thecoparituUon*! impossibility of
their containing “squatter sovereignty" did uot ex
Letter from Hon. P. E. Love,
Washisot.,,*, D. C, May Btb, I860:
Gesti.emk* : Although you will, perhaps, soon
see my views express-il iu connection With others,
sod in a differeut firm upon Use subject of yonr
letter, yet, I cheerfully respodd to you,- aud you
may publish what I say if you think proper.
When thepeople of the northern States discover
ed that Afriean slaveirwasnnprofitabhs among them,
they abolished it. Individual Interest-was the parent
of the out! slavery sentimeht among tBetp.. and tbit
sentiment hik now degenerated into a moral fanat
icism. The whole dorthern mindhi diseased on this
subject. Tho Republican party is th* representa
tive of this sentiment, this fanaticism, this disease.—
That the ultimate object of this party is the abolition
of slavery in the southern States, no man who is
brought in frequent contact with its leaders, can (nr
a moment doubt. True, they profess only a deter
mination to keep it eat of the eotnmon Territories,
but they will admit, when pressed upon tbe subject,
T it this is only a meant to Ihe desired emi. There
_ j many good men *t.the north—men who are free,
to n grist extent, from this fanaticism, and who
would be willing to concede too* our constitutional
right*, but they are pressed to t he wall by Ibis great
and growing Itepnblicau party. Thu Republican
leaders have made the great body of the northern
people believe that it is- * degradation to live' in a
slaixlixuiin I liu'utlj Mr. 'Alley, a representative
from Massachusetts, a few days agn, iu tbe House,
after styling the slaveholders of the south as brag
garts and ruffians, declared that th* aonthern non-
slaveholders were not equal to tbe free negroes of
hia State. Such expressions aa these are common
from the representatives of the free States—we have
to listen to them almost daily. It is not surprising
.that-the great voting population of the north, iguo-
"rant -*lb**y street tho fact*, ehould be led to believe
that the Republican parly is tho guardian not only
of their interest*, but of tbeff honor also.' What is
to be the result of alt this I As tbe noh-*l«vehnld-
ing State* have a majority of thp e ectoral votes, tbe
probability is that the Republican psrty will soon
elect a President, and indeed, get possession of all
the departments of the* Government, Executive,
Legi-lative. and Judicial. What then 7 If the south
ern States should remain iu the Union after this,
(which God forbid), Fedors) Republican cfliceri
scattered throughout the fibath. would toon build up
a Republican party in each State, and tbe ultimate
result presents a picture to my mind, which 1 will
not attempt To present to'yours. It ia the part ot
patriotism to laboi ' Smtata h
fadiit
men in the South may honestly differ.
U has been said, that thejilatform upon which we
fought the battle in. J836, and upon which, we tri
umphed over the Black Republicans, is susceptible
of two constructions, and that a portion of tbe Nor
thern wing of the party contend that, according to
the doctrines oi the platform, a Territorial Lexisla.
ture tody pass laws abolishing slavery in the Terri
tories, or may enact such unfriendly legislation as
will destroy or impair ita usefulness; while the De
mocracy at the. Sonth deny that the platform con
tains snch doctrines. 1 will not deny that this di
versity of opinion may exist, and, on this account;
that it may be neoeoaary to give such explanations
to the platform as may render its true exposition less
equivocal. " I
As I understand tbe decision of the Supreme
Court, in the Dred.Scott case, which has bean pro-
nnnnced since the Cincinnati Covention, it settles
this question. The published opinion of thst tribu
nal denies that either Congress or tpe Territorial
Legislature has any power, under the Constitution,
to abolish slavery in the Territories, ox to enact any
ItTri’T.^JeSi'mn'of'thVffighest ‘jM WbunM
in tbe Union, upon the very point in controversy,
Ihe decision is in favor of the Southern constrnc-
tion of tha platform. What other explanation of the
platform do tbq Southern Democracy need, there-
fore, tbaq Ihe passage of a resolution by the Nation
al Democratic Convention adopting this decision,
and binding the Northern, as well as the Southern
Democracy, to abide by it, and sustain it! If the
decision of the codrt is adopted as an interpretation
of tho platfiirm on the very point In diapete, and
the Northern Democracy are committed to it) what
further objection can be made to the platform, on
the ground of a difference of construction T Is it
not made sufficiently certain ? *
It may be said, however, that the resolutions pass
ed by a majority of the Charleston Convention, are
not sufficiently explicit on this point; and I confess
that I should prefer a resolution of less equivocal
import. The resolution which is nnderstood to have
been tendered by the New York'delegation, after tbe
greater portion of the southern delegates from tbe
cotton States, had seceded, and which is believed
to have been satisfactory to tbe delegates from Vir*
ginta, Kentucky, and .Tennessee, in my opinion,
contains All that is necessary to a clear understand-
ing of the platform. 1
Upon this resolution, the South oin, I think, unite
without any sacrifice of principle,Dr of honor.
Tlib resolution is in those words: ~~ H
"Resolved, That the citizens of the United States-
have an equal right to settle with -their property in
tbe Territories Of the’United States-, and that under
the decision of tho Supreme Court of tbe United
Status, which tee recognise as the correct exposition of
the ConstilntiprsoJthe United Slates, neither the right
of persons nor property can be destroyed, or im
paired by Congresatonal or Territorial legislation.'*
It is understood that this resolution is’the ultima
turn of the Southern-States which remained in the
■convention. My opinion is that it may be adopted
at Baltimore, and that tbe whole party, north and
sonth, may unite upon it.
in tbe hope that this maybe done, and that the
convention may nominate a sound and safe man, I
think Georgia, and all the other southern States
ehould b* represented in the Baltimore convention.
In the present emergency, on account of the di
versity of opinion which prevails among different
members ot the democratic party, I recommend
tbe Immediate call-of a State Convention, by the
Executive Committee, of the party, ss I. think it ne-
Ceasarjr that the party meet together io counsel,-and
In a spirit of conciliation and kindness, do *!I in the
ptnver ot its mem hero, to adjust.in an amicable maiv
nor, lhe,diffiaukies which now distract it. The con-
renting should be composed, ns far as possible, f.f the
onto postpone the day of these ca-
fiitiea to the remotest period.possible, and my on-
to xscouHpsaXItfrnm R.I
Even according to their doctrine, wc have the un
restrict Cl! right of expansion to tho extent ot popu
latino. They boW th at slavery can, and will, go,
under Its iperaiion, wherever the people want it —I
Squatter* cani-■! it toTenm--ntee, Kentucky, Mis
souri, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, without
and to TeM
iy hope of any postponement is through tbe agency
of thy great democrat io party. You mayjudge.tlien,
of the pain with which 1 watched the discordant
proceedings, and the mortification, with. which I
heard tho result, at Charleston'. Hsd I been pi csent
I should not. perhaps, have advised the secession
movement, hut I shall be tbe last man to condemn
Rant, true-hearted southerners. 11 they erred
was on the side of principle and truth. My
*‘ that die Richmond Convention sbonld be
any iaw to prod ot R, and, to Texas againrt law pro-, —I —-———- - ,——..
Minting it, and they will carry it to all countries J it altogether probntde, that the Convention at Itich-
and let another liouest ami fraternal effort be made
to harmonize upon a platform and a candidate. II
this con be done, then let the Richmond Conv. ntiou
stand adjourned fine die. If it cannot,—If the south
ern and northern democrats must separate, I think
moml will be much larger than tho seceitiou con-
ventlao at Charleston. There, are my a taws briefly
expressed, and they are yours either to publish or
destroy, asyou sou fit. Respectfully,
* p. e. love.
Messrs. Robert Collins and others.
w hore climate, soil, production, and population will
nllow. These aro the natural laws that win regulate
it under non I ' trrrrntion, according to thoir ror.stn;,-
lion ; and no act of Congress can carry it into any
Territory against these laws, any more than it could
make the rivers run to the mountains instead of tho '
sea If we have not enough of theright sort of pop
ulation to compete longer with the north in the colo-,
(fixation of new Territories and States, this deli
cienoy can never bo supplied hy any such act of,
Concre.-a as that now askwl for. The attempt would ' ... ,, , ,
be as vain iu. that of Xexxes lo control the waters, a runiitanci. to the Telegraph saj-s:
of t ie Hellespont by whipping tliimin his rage. , “I am ivcll pleased with your move to send
r.," times. O'.ion tin, ,t.-. do. m.l.-d. portend n . . 1, j _,
evil. Ilut I h ive no fears for the institution of 11- ' ,l 111 " • cl OI IK K e™
very, ei:
are but
to fixed principl
grey-headed men ot the party, who bare for jni
; ’ears been looked up to, as tbestandards in their
i pective counties. They should deliberate with that
dignified composure which the occasion requires —
Neither crimination nor re-crimination should-be
indulged in; nor should any strife for the mastery
of ooo wing of tbe party-over the other be permitted
to influence the action nfthe convention.
The fate, not only of tbe Democratic party, but of
th« Union of the States, probably, bangs npon tbo
decision of the States which seceded from the
Charleston Convention. It is proper, therefore,
that the conventions soon to assemble in three
States approach this qnesthm with all tbe modera
tion and caution which ita importance demands.—
White we* should yield -nn eeeoutial right fob tlio
sake of harmony, wo should throw no nnnecessary
obstscle in its way.
If v)i* Democratic party will stand npon tbe Cin
cinnati Platform, and the resolution tendered bythe
New York delegation at Charleston, adopting the
decision of the Supreme Court ss the proper exposi-
tion of the Platform, I'seo no advantage which the
South can gun by refusing longer to co-operate
with thd party. What other party, able to contend
with the Black Republican party, has adopted a
llalforra as sound f It Is true, the Opposition party
n Georgia, in their late convention, took high South
ern ground upon Ibis question, but they were una
ble to maintain and engrhft it npon' the National
Platform of their parly. Tbe only way left by which
theyconld maintain anything tike nationality was to
ignore the whole question, and to adopt virtually no
platform. Tbe phrase, -The Constitution, the Union,
and tbe mainUunance of the laws,” which the “Tele
graph" has just informed us is their platform, is sus
ceptible of as mkny different constructions as there
nre.yarious shade* of opinion among the different
section* and persona composing Ihe organization.—
My advice, therefore, is, to send delegates to Haiti-
more, to insist upon .the adoption -of the Cincinnati
platform, and the resolution tendered by the New
York delegation, or some other of similar import, a%
the platform; and that asoundman be placed npon it
as the no mines of the party. Should this bo denied,
there will then be time enough to meet at Richmond
or elsewhere, and adopt a platform and nominate can
didates upon It, with a view to a sectional cantsst.
I atn. very respectfully.
Your fellow-citizen and ob't serv’t,
JOSEPH E. BROWS.
Mee.-rs. Robert Collins, Joint J. Gresham, James
V. Armstrong, and others, Macon, 3a.
of resolutions, which not. only - ignored and dented
their equality in the common territories, but refused
their recognition when demanded. Now, did oar
delegates demand anything ia Charleston, to which
wearenot justly entitled T
Was it unreasonable, after tbo construction that
Mr. Douglas had placed upon the Cincinnati plat
form, iu his essays and addresses? Not only was this
denial of the platform clearly made, and -that too
by Ibe-votes of delegates representing States that
cannot be relied upouio give a single electoral vote
for President; but by the same States we were
threatened with the nomination of Mr. Douglas for
President. This Was so unjust, and to destructive
of our rights, that our representatives would-not
submit to it. 'Will we I
It is smarter of still greater regret, that there
should be any division at the South in this crisis.—
The anion of the South, for the preservation of our
equality and honor,'is of tbe most vital importance
to their successful inaiutainance; and being assur-
ed that upon the return of the seceding Bute* to the
perhaps others, will go out of tho convention. .Lam
prepared to give my consent to the return of out
delegation to the convention at Baltimore. .
Let no angry controversy arise in our party in
Georgia. Hume none ofon^ delegates Let all go
back together—let us remain political brethren, at
toast whtle wetiave a formidable foe in tho field.
In my opinion it would oe best net to.hold a Con
vention in our State ou the -Itb of June next, I fear
it wiir engender strife iu oar party and divide our
friends at atiine vvhen,they should be united. There
is not sufficient time for a fall Convention If a
Convention is to be held, lot tho March ( nnvention
be assembled—they are fair men and will reflect
the will of the people—they can oonverse with, and
represent the people. At all events, if any Conven
tion is held, it should be a full one. Let all partici
pate in it, io that no bogus delegation will be sent
to Baltimore to misrepresent the State, aad 'give its
vote at Baltimore to a man tliat the Democracy of
llenrgisdu not intend to vote for. Let the voice of
the Democracy bespoken in an autlioritive manner,
so that all may heed. it.
In conclusion, I will say that the times are full of
peril, such as to exrite the apprehension of every
loyal son of the Souths not so much as regards the
Demoaratio.party, or the Union, but tbe rights,
equality and honor of the South are in danger. Our
first duty is to ourselves—to guard, protect and de
fend our honor aud equality in the Union. To do
this, we must bo united at home. Thus united and
demanding nothing but what is right, we will obtain
it in the Utiioh. and the Union will be safe. With
out unity of design and action, our equality iu the
Union, oar rights and honor are endangered, tbe
party o. >
action of the delegation in that convention, and. of
the reasons for that action. In compliance with
that mandate, I beg leave to submit to the Demo
crstic party of Georgia, the following statement;
A committee of one from each State, having been
appointed by the convention, to report a “plat-
form" of principles, the majority of that committee
reported as snch "platform" the following resolu-
Resolved. That the platform adopted by the Dem-
ocratic party at Cincinnati, be affirmed, with tne
following explanatory resolutions:
• j o'*’ '^ ,,£ the government of a Territory organ-
ized by an act of emigres*, is provisional and tern-
p or.ary; ,i n d during its existence, all citizens of tbe
United States have an equal viglit to settle with
-.1" P ro P ert y ‘ u the Territonr without their rights,
either of person or property, being destroyed or im-
f—red by Congressional or Territorial legislation
Second, That it is tbe duty of the Federal Gov
cniiii.-nt, iu nil its departments, to pn.teet, when
necessary, the rights of persons and property in tlio
Territories, and wherever else its constitutional au
thority extends.
Third, That when tho settlers in a Territory, hav
ing an adequate population, forma State Constitn
tion, the right of sovereignty commences, and, be
ing consummated by admission into the Union they
stand on nn equal footing with the people of other
States; and the State thus organized ought to be
admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Consti
tution prohibits or recognizes tho institution of sla
very.
Fourth, That the Democratic party are in favor
of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on snch
terms as shall bo honorable to ourselves and just to
Spain, at the earnest practicable moment.
Fifth. That the enactment of State Legislatures
to defeat tbe faithful execution ofthe FugitiveBlave
Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the
Constitntion, and revolutionary in their effect.
Sixth, That the Democracy ot the United States
gni.-.c it a- tl,.- imperative duti of this Govern
ment to protect the naturalized citizen in oil bis
rights, whether at homo or in foreign lands, to the
same extent as its native-born citizens.
Wherete, one oi the greatest necessities of the
age; in a political, commercial, postal add military
point of view, is a speedy communication between
tne Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Democraticjiarty do hereby
pledge rhsnBetves-to use every means in tbelr pow
er to secare tbe passage of some bill, to the extent
ofthe constitutional authority of Congress, for the
construction ofa Pacific Railroad from th.
slppi river to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest
practicable moment. " * _ ,
The whole committee consisted of thirty-three,
' Charleston Convention. Those resolutions are as
f °K°esoIved, Thatt/ie democracy of Illinois, in State
Convention assembled, do re-assert and affirm the
Cincinnati platform, in the words, spirit and mean
ing with which the same was adopted, understood
and ratified by tho people in ie56, and do reject and
utterly repudiate altsuch new issues and tests as the
African slave trade, or a Congressional stave code
forthe Territories, or the doctrines that slavery 13 a
Federal institution, deriving ita validity in the sev
eral States and Territories in which it exists from
the Constitution of the United States instead of be
ing a mere municipal institution, existing m such
lort, consisted of seventeen, of which, fifteen be
ouged to the southern States, and two to Oregon
and California. These seventeen States are the on
ly reliable Democratic States, the latest elections be
ing the test. - -
A part of the minor.ty committee, reported the
following resolutions:
Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union,
in Convention assembled, hereby declqye our affir
mance of the resolutions unanimously adopted and
declared as a platform of principles bythe Demo
cratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856,
believing that Democratic principles are unchange
able in their nature, when applied to the same sub
ject matters, and we recommemlas tho only further
resolution the following r-*
inasmuch Ss differences of opinion exist in the
Democratic party os to the nature aud extent of the
powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as tq the
powers and duties of Congress; under the Constitu
tion at the United States, over the insti ution of sla
very within the Territories.. '
S. Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide
by tbe decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States on the questions of constitutional law.
3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the Uuited States
1 afford ample and complete protection to alt its
citizens, whether at-home or abroad, and whether
nat.veor foreign.
4. H.-sol ved. That one of the necessities of the age,
in a military, commercial, and postal point of view,
is speedy communication between the AUantic and
Pacifio Staton: and tbe Democratic party pledge
such constitutional Government aid as will insure
the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast,
at the earliest practicable period.
S Resolved, That the Democratic party are in
favor ot (be acquisition of tbe Island of Cuba, on
States and Territories “under the Jaws thereof.
Resolved, That the people of the Territories re
spectively, shall be left perfectly free to make just
snch laws and regulations in respect to slavery and
all other matters ofiocal concern as they may de
termine for themselves, subject to no otner limita
tions or restrictions than those imposed by tho Con
sttntion of the United Stales.
According to the Southern view of the declaration
in the Kansas and Nebraska Act, it does not mean
any of these things, but is entirely consistent with
tho propositions contained in the majority report.
Those propositions are, in substance, as follows
1st. That, during the existence of Territorial gov
ernment, all citizens of the United Stales have ar
equal ri»bt to settle with their property in the Ter
ritory. Silly, That having settled there, their rights
of person or of property aro not subject to be im
paired or destroyed by either Congressional or Ter
ritorial legislation. 3*dly, That it is tho duty of the
Federal Government, in all its branches, to protect,
when necessary, these rights of person aud of prop
erty in the Territory.
Consequently, the import of the act of the Con
vention, .substituting the "Cincinnati Platform” for
tho resolutions of the majority of the committee,
was an affirmation, by tin- tir.-t, that
tho.-.- r- -..Unions were no! true ; and secondly, that
the “Cincinnati Platform," as interpreted by Mr.
Douglas and his, friends, was true, ad was to be the
"platform” of the Democratic patty. The import of
tlio act was clearly this. That is to say, tlie.act was
equivalent to the rejection of the resolutions of the
majority, and to the establishment of propositions
the opposito of those resolutions, os the creed ofthe
Democratic party.
The question, theD, for the Georgia delegation,
was: ought they M stand such an act, or ought they
to withdraw from tho Convention ? The answer to
tliis question ought to depend, it is supposed, on
three things: first, were the propositions contained
in tiie resolutions of the majority true? Secondly,
were the Democracy of the South at liberty, in hon
or, to insist on them ?. Thirdly, were tho proposi.
tions important to fhe South. If these three ques
tions orb to be answered in the affirmative, then the
answer to tbe first question must be, it is conceived,
that it was the duty of the delegation not to stand
the act, but to withdraw from tho Convention.
First, then, aro the propbsifions contained in tho
report of the majority tnet
geimiiiiitQ
“M^ooisr
jpoi ,- —
one from each State. The majority making this r«- The first of those propositions is, that daring the
h ' ng*' * — existence of territorial government, all citizens of
the United States, have an equal right to settle with
their property, in the territory. That is to' say that
a citizen of Georgia, has as much right to settle in a
territory, with his slaves, as a citizen of Massachu
setts bos to settle there with his cattle- that, it the
Massachusetts title to thecatfie, subsists, after the
cattle are cairiod into the territory, the Georgia ti
tie to the slaves, equally subsists, after the slaves
are carried into the territory. And this, surely is
true. Whatever there ia to keep alive the Massa-
ohusetts'title, there equally is, to keep alive the
Gcorgiatitle. What is there to keepalive tho Mas
sachusetts title 1 Only this, it is believed that Mas-,
sachusetts is, in common with the other States, sov
creign owner of the territory, and the laws of the
sovereign extend over all his territory. Thus the
laws of England extend over the thirteen colonies
without any special enactment so extending them,
aud covered aud protected British subjects emigrat
ing to those colonies, in their British rights of per-,
son and of property. Why; because Great Britain
was the sovereign of the territory colonized. So it
must he equally true that the laws of Massachusetts
extend over our. territories, and cover and protect
her citizens settling in them, in their Massachusetts ?
derived rights, for site is sovereign owner, ill coni-
rithil' ‘ “ ■
Union imperilled, ami the Democratic party defeat-
■ Therefore I counsel moderation. If, however.
ed.-
this spirit should not prevail, anil evil counsels con
trol. and division in our ranks at home must come,
and an issue should be made bet ireen tbe delegates
who seceded from, and those who remained in the
Convention at Charleston, my mind is made up. I
shall act with those who dumanded'nnthing but a
deoieU and refated‘that.
I *m with high respect^ * ' • *
Year fellow citizen, *
JOHN \Y. If. USVERXVOOD.
sT9. Kobt. Collins* and other**, Macon.
letter from David Kendall, Sen,
WatZhakVilek, Ui sqd co., May 10,1860.
Gentlemen.—Your favor of tbe 5th inst., hasjust
come to band, iu which you ask for an expression of
iny views in regard to ioa recent developments in
theiate democratic convention at Charleston, and I
hasten to respond, I hope, fully alive to tho momen
tous importance of the subject. I participate with
you, gentlemen, io the fearful apprehensions you en
tertain of tbe dangers which “threaten tbe integrity
mid overthrow of the democratic party,” and to'
avert, if possibles catastrophe so deeply to be de
plored, I am decidedly of opinion that the demo
craoy of Georgia ought.to be represented in tliead
jottroed coarentioq at Baltimore, in June next, by
delegates of conservative proclivities, but sensitive
/jr jealous of the rights *ud honor of the South. 1
cherish a strong and abiding faith in the disposition
of our northern democratic brethren to do us justice.
J honor them for their, fidelity to the Constitution,
and for the aid they have rendered us in Ihe mairv
tainance of onr rights under it heretofore,- and .be
lieve it to be Our duty to meet them again in a
friendly and conciliatory spirit. Yet. I believe it
will be tbe duty of Southern delegates to oppoae,
with firmness, any action which will tend to the dis
organization of the democratic party at tbe .South.
If our northern friends are made to understand the
real state of affairs now existing at the South in the
democratic party, 1 feel assuredtbey will not persist
in their efforts to force an obnoxious candidate upon
'us. For myself, I am ready to avow that my pre
indices against the favorite of our northern friends
or my ahhorence of his peculiar theory in" rrgari
•rritoriesj I have not beenwery ardent,*nd
bare 'been .very readily reconciled *to his
ion. let I candidly believe, and-Jiis friends
Tin: IVAl* TIIF.Y TALK.
A good old fashioned planter of Georg
GOV. BROWN’S LETTER.
The public contidenccin tlie judgment, pru
dence and integrity of Governor Brown, will
attract an earnest attention to his letter of to
day. We had but a moment to glance over it,
before putting it in the compositors’ hands, but
or my ahhorence
to thoterritories,
1 could hare jbef
nomination Yet I candidly hOIieve, and-his frie
must be brought to believe, that the- nomination of
Mr. Douglas will inevitably result in tho disruption
and deteal °f tho democratic party. Wo should, in
my opinion, not quarrel with the-North about the
locality of the Candidate, although common courte
sy would yield it to the Booth - to select the man;
yet ihe North has many sound Constitutional men,
8ncb.aa Line, Dickinson; Pierce, Cashing, Wood
and others, uppn whom-the democracy, of both
sections, would cordially unite’. . ; '
Hoping, by tbe1 guidance of Providence, thedark
and pprteutoiu clouds that now lower oyer our do.
tieal horizon may be dispelled by wise aud patriot-
'counsels, »■' • . - • .
I«m very respectfully yobrs. &c.
- •DAVID KENDALL, Sen.
Messrs.Collins, Gfeshain, ‘Armstrong and^oiherj.
Tlie Koine Southerner.—This able
paper leads oifin n long and vigorous article
upon tlie National nnd Seceding Conventions
from which wc take the following extract:
The Opposition are in their glory. Tne Democ
racy have done fdr themselves, what they fit he Op
position) have been trying to do for many years. It
is very natural for them lo rejoice over tlie rupture
in the ranks of tbe Democracy; and their greatest,
efforts will be to widen tho breach between the two
wings. Tho disuniouista are also in their glory;
they know another chain that binds the North anil
the Southtogetber has been severed. They consid
er it a step in the right direotion; and that is to
wards a dissolution oi the Union. We believe the
danger ia iminent, but hope the Opposition aud dis-
unionists may Lo disappointed iu t heir exp«cfati«ns.
\V o mab to seethe wounds in the ranks of the Na
tional Democracy healed. There is not, in opr
jndgxneut, autlicieot cause to divide the grout Na*
tional Democratic party especially when such divis
ion brings In it# train that Inestimable calamity, a
dissolution of this Union 1
nntry will have to think of
p ; they are the ones mostly
i peop]
these things themselves; they ( ( |
interested in a peaceable and substantial govern
ment ; but iu order to fiml the truth, and the real
state ofthe question that is now agitating this coua-*
try, they must look beneath the surface—They need
not rely npon the high phrases of tnterestedpoliticians
and tncktiert; office hunters and leaders lend tbvir
aid to no measure that doys not contribute to their
personal benefit or to that of a friend —Such naen
are wholly unworthy, of confidence, and we warn
the honest masses against them. Of all tho Seceden*
from, tbo Charleston Convention, we do hot believe
Jlo»t oue-tenth oi them left for a principle. The gen
tlemen who. acted in that movement have'too much
sense to (raitave that the mere expression fn h politi
cal platform of tbe dufy of Congress to protect
slavery in tho Territories would give «s protection,
A thousand political platforms might say slave prop
erty ought to le protected in tkc Territories, but no in
telligent man believes that would gire snch protec
tion. We all know it would do no more good than
a puff of wind.
MOBILE AXD TTIE SECEDERS.
Mobile, May 15.-—A large democratic meet
ing was held hero last night which denounced
the secession and passed resolutions that the
State be represented in the Baltimore Conven
tion. Also appointing delegates ton State Dcm*
such terms ad shall be honorable to ourselves and
just to Spain, \
*6. Resolved, That the enactments of State Legis
latures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugi
tive Sliive Law. are hostile iu character, subversive
of thft Constitution, and revolutionary iu their ef
fect.
Another, und a smaller part of the minority,*re
ported tlie “ Cincinnati platform*' unchanged.
The Convention on considering these three re
ports, adopted the second, in view of the other two,
after striking from it, the second ies »lutiou with its
preamble. The effect of this action of the Convention,
was to reject the majority report, and to substitute
for Jt, the 44 Cincinnati platform" “pure and sim
ple.” together with some other propositions, about
which, there was uot much difference of opinion. -
Tlie vote In favor of the substitution of the Cin
Tindall platform, for tbe majority report, whs given
almost exclusively bv thh Northern States; the vote
against the substitution, was given almost exclu
sively by the Southern States aud by Oregon aud
California. . .
Of theft two reports, the parts about which the
great disagreement existed, were the parts relating
to the question.of slavery in the Territories! The
parts of the “ Cincinnati platform,”.relating to that
question, is as follows:
••The American Democracy recognike and adopt
the principles contained in the organic laws estab
lishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, ns-
‘slavery question,’ upon which the .great national
idea of the people of this whole country can jnepose
in ita determined coofervatism of the Union/"” Non
interference by Congress, with slavery ift State apd
Territory, or in the District of Columbia.”
In the Kansas and Nebraska act it is declared to
be the “true intent and meaning of' the “act not to
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate- their domestio
institutions in their own way, subject- only to the
Constitution of tliq Uni fed States.” In thisdeclora-
tion, is contained-the “principles” “recognized and
adopted” in the part aforesaid ofthe ‘.‘Cincinnati
platform.”
t the
into
J. M.' Clark,
Wm.-M. Slaughter,
•John A Jones,
David C. Borrow, *
Jas. J. Diamond,
_ Franklin Hill,
Ed. L. Strohecker,
O. C. Gibson,
Henr^O. Thomas,
sas,Texas and a part ofthe delegation of Delaware,
withdrew from the Convention. And then, the Geor
gia delegation, asked and 'obtained leave to retire,
to consult as to what it would do. D did accord
ingly consult, and after doing so, adopted two reso
lutions, which it dirfC'ed its Chairman to report to
the Convention. The resolutions, with their signa
tured; Ar&*s fbllon^j ^
Resolved. That upon the opening ot the Conven
tion Ibis morning our Chairman be requested to
state to the President that the Georgia delegation,
after mature deliberation, have felt it tb be their du
ty, under existing circumstances, notfo participate
furtheV in the dmiberattona ofthe .Convention, and
tfiat therefore fhe delegation withdraw.
Resolved, That all who acquiesce in tlie forego
ing resolutions sign the same, und request the Con
vention to outer it on their records.
(Signed.) ^
Junius Wingfield. Ifenry I* Henning,
Henry It. Jackson, P. Tracy,
Jefferson N. Lamar,
Edmund J MoGebee,
Geo. Hillyer.
Mark Johnston,
Edward R. Harden,
John H. Lumpkin,
G. G. Fair, -
James lloge, .
VV. J. Johnson.
Tho undersigned delegates from Georgia, having
voted in the meeting of the delegation against
withdrawing from the Convention yet believe, under
the instructions contained in the resolution of the
Georgia Convention, that the vote of lit* majority
should control our motion, and. we therefore with
draw with the majority.
I. T. Irwin. Julien Hart ridge,
W. H. Hull, L. H. Briscoe.
The Chairman accordingly reported these resolu
tion# to the Convention, and thereupon, those of the
delegates who had signed them, being twenty six
in number, withdrew from thoConvention. A min
ority preferred to remain in the Convention. It
consisted of Judge Warner, Judge Thomas, Mr.
Seward. Mr.* 'Cohen, Mr. Gaulden, Mr. Nelms, Mr.
Cleaveland, Dr. Casey, Mr. Render, Gen. Bnruey
and Mr.' Candler. ..
Afterwords', the Convention determined, that this
minority, was not entitled to cast the vote of Geor
gia, and the^voto of Georgia was no mere cast iu
the convention " -*
The greater part of the withdrawing members
joined a convention which had been formed, of.the
delegations that had previously withdrawn.. Thi&
convention adopted thamajority. resolutions afore
said and, after doing some other, nbt very impor
tant business, passed the following resolution:
* “Resolved, That the Democratic party of the
United States, who are in-favor 'of a platform of
.irincipleS"-recommended by the majority of States
i tbe Charleston Convention, be invited to send
delegates to a Convention to bo held in Richmond,
on the second Monday in Juno next, and that the
basis of representation bo tho samd As that upon
which the Slated have been represented in the
Charleston Conventon.
It then adjourned sine die.
The other convention had previously adjourned
to meet again at Baltimore,-ou fhe third-Monday In
Jpne next. Its resolution of adjournment was in the
following words :
“Resolved. That when this Convention adjeurn,
it adjourn to re-assemble at Baltimore, on Monday,
the I Pth day of June next, and that it is respectfully
recommended to the Democratic party of tho sever-
al States, to make provision for supplying ail vneau
cies in their respective delegations to this.conven-
tion when it shall re-assemole.”
This is a brief statement of tbe action of the Geor
gia delegation ai Charleston. *
It remains to advert to tbe reasons for thatac-
t i" 11.
The convention substituted, by a northern vote,
the naked ’Cincinnati platform/ for the report of the
majority. Whatwos tlieimportoftlmtaet! Apart
of chat platform, as ft has been shown, adopts the
“principles*! of the Kanansnod Nebraska Act, which
are contained in Redeclaration, that it is tho “true
intent und ineaniuq of " the "Act, not to legislate
slavery into any territory, or State, nor to exclude it
theretroin, but to leave tlie people thereof, perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestio institutions
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States."
This declaration in that act, has received two in
terpretations in the democratic party, one from Mr.
Douglas audhis friends, tiie other from the rest of
mon with her sister States, of the territories. The
fact, that there are other owners, in common with
her, may make a difiiculty in tho administration of
jaw in the territory, but it cannot prevent tbe appli-
cation of the principle, that the laws of the sever-
eizn, extend over the territories of the sovereign.—
If England, France and Turkey, had taken the Cri
mea from Russia, would not the .laws ot each of. the
three countries have, immediately extended them
selves over tha Crimea, including tbe ataves and
polygamy laws Of Turkey; and have protected their
citizens respectively, emigrating into the Crimea, : -
all the rights with which they left home T
But if the sovereignty of Massachusetts over the
territories, is sufficient to extend her laws over the
territories so as to protect her citizens settling in
them, in their rights derived, from her laws, so
equally, must the sovereignty of Georgia over the
territories, be sufficient to.extend her laws over them,
in such a way, as to protect her citizens settling ii
them, in their rights derived from her laws, includ
ing their rights to slaves. At least, this much is
true, that whatever source there is to go to, tor
keeping alive in the territory the Massachusetts ti
tle to tho cattle, there is the same, or a similar source,
to resort to, for keeping alive in the territory the
Georgia title to the staves. But it is admitted that
the Massachusetts title is kept alive in tbe territory.
It follows, therefore, that the - Georgia title-must,
eonally. be kept alive in the terrritory.
'The first proposition then is tree.
Is the secon d true I That proposition is, that
rights thus carried by th'e settlers with them i
Ihe territory, are not subject to be impaired or de
stroyed,* either by congressional or territorial legis
lation. . . ,*- -.
There is not, it is believed, any considerable part
ofthe democratic party, which maintains that Con-
-ress has the power to impair or destroy the right to
..old slaves in tbe territories. lathe cose of Bred
Scott, one ofthe questions made, argded and Bed
ded, wos whether a law of Congress,, prohibiting
esrei, nnpe territories, (the Missouri Compromise
Act,) wqs constitutional or not; and the decision
was, that tbe law was not constitutional.
It may be assumed, then, as true! so far as the
democratic party is concerned, that Congrtss hasno
power to impair or destroy property in staves, in tho
territories, * -
Has the territorial legislature that power ! If it
has, whence does it get the power ? From Con-
tress, from the States, or from God I These seem to
>e the only possible sources. It does not get the
lower from Congress, because, as has been shown,
B ingress has not the power to bestow—Congress
has not. Itself, any power to impair or destroy slave-
jry in the territories It does not get the power from
the States. They make no grant of any sort to the
territories. And to say that it gets the power from
God, by divine grant, is to say, that any body of
meu, small or great, come from what quarter they
may, who. enter upon and occupy onr territory, be
come sovereign lords of it, and may make what laws
for it they please. If occupancy will give to one
body of men the right to plead a divine grant to the
land occupied, it will give to every other body of oc-
cupanti, the same right. Thus, tbe Chinese might
become the sovereigns of our territories. They
would only have to be the first to occupy it.
The second proposition is then true.
.Is the third true! It is the duty of-the Federal
Government, in all its departments, to protect, when
necessary, citizens settling in a territory, in all their
rights of person or of property, derived under, the
laws of t)ie States from which they come T That is
very is not in the territories already—an admission
which site has not made, and wilt not make.
It follows, then, that when tlie Southern democra
cy agreed not to ask Congress to legislate slavery
into the territories, they, by no means bound them
selves not to demand Us protection for slavery al
ready in the territories.
As to the second part of the Cincinnati agreement,
viz: that the people of the territories were to be left
free to form their domestic institutions inttheirown
way, subject only to tlie Constitution. What is tliis
but saying, that the people of the territories, shall,
with respect to slavery, have power to do what the
Constitution allows them to do, and shall not have
power to do anything more. Tho agreement merely
is, that the people of tho territories may do, against
slavery in their territories,whatever they can consti
tutionally do. ifthey can constitutionally do anything
against it. What then can they constitionally do
against it? Impair or destroy it? No; because
they have no power, except such as they derive Irom
Congress, and Congress itself does not, as we have
seen, possess the power to impair or destroy slavery
in Die territories.
Why is Congress without this power 7
For this reason, if for no other: The Territories
belong to tho States in common, as sovereigns. If
there was a dissolution of the Union, each State
would be entitled to its share ot the Territories. If
the States were to amend the Constitution, and give
to Congress, tho power to cede away the Territo
ries, to a foreign nation, tho amendment would be
valid, and a cession afterwards made, would be a
good transfer. The Territories thus belonging to
tbe States, as sovereigns, it is tho right of ends State,
that its laws shall go with its citizens, emigrating
into a Territory, and protect them there, .in the
rights they derive from it. The laws of a nation ac
company its ships wherever they go, and cover crew .JAM J
and cm-go, and no nation has as much right to the :i„j ln > i i “ fl , n ’’“fit
sea, as Ihe States of this Union have to the public ettea ana settled by a Tull Convtww
Territories. That this right Co every State, that its party; and oitcli a Convention setrry.,,'
laws thouLl accompany its emigrant into a IVrrito- ub-'nhiteiy m-.vssarv.
ry, and there protect him in his State-derived rights,
lettfed, and In the m'anntir before stated. The qnes-
tiom therefore, for the retiring part of the Georgia
delegation* how ^best to counteract the effect*
of the action of the Convention on the “ platform, •
question ? And most of them thought that they
ought to take counsefin -the matter with fhe other
retiring delegations. Accordingly, they joined those
delegations In a separate convention.
from the Convention, and whilst they were sitting
in separate convention, n disposition to concede
something, on the subject of tho “platform,” *cems
to have eniertd into same of the Northern deiega
tions.
Tlio New York delegation tendered a resolution
which is in tho following words :
Resolved That the citizens of the United States
have an equal right to settle with their property in
the Territories of the United States; und that, un
der the decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, which we recognize as the correct expo
sition of the Constitution of the United States, neith
er tbe right of persons or property can be destroyed
or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legisla
tion '
Mr. Howard, of Tennessc. in bringing the fact be
fore the Convention, said, “ He proposed to offer the
resolution, whenever tho proper opportunity
of the South.” And
curred, as the ultimatum
Mr.
to say, supposing that tho judiciary and the execu
tive are unable,*and the territorial legislature is un
willing to protect these rights, does it then become
the duty of Congress, by legislation, to protect them?
Congress has the powsr so to protect them;
If Congress has not the power to protect. by legis
lation, right* existing in a territory, there is no leg
islation'which has; for the only other legislation in
the case, is the territorial legislature, and it derives
all it3 powers from Congress. Consequently, if Con
gress has not the power itself to legislate for the
protection, of thpse rights, it-cannot delegate Ihe
now ef to do so to the territorial legislature. But ft
is conceded, on all luinds, that the territorial legisla
ture may legislate for the protection of any rights
existing in the territory. Therefore Congreesinay
do so iu like manner.. - _ . / ''
Congress has exercised t^e power. It has amend
ed, if not repealed, statutes organizing territories
It is now probably in the act of repealing the statute
organizing Utah territory. In every such case, tho
object* was, to protect some right, of some kind, that
was suffering in the territory. Congress, fhen, has
the power to protect the rights iu question iu the ter
ritories
lint if it nas the power to do so, it is its duty to
exercise tho power in the case in hand—that is,
cape In which the exercise of the power.is “neces
sary” to*the preservation of the rights. For, among
rights which Congress has the power to protect, j
how can it discriminate, and say it will protect
and will not protect others ? It must be its duty to
treat all alike, and protect all equally.
The three propositions, then, contained in thb re
port of the Majority, were true. v " V * -•
Were the democracy ot the South at liberty to
Insist upon them, or had they agreed with the' dem
ocracy of the North not to insist oh them t
- The chief argument—perhaps the only argutnent
—urged against the proposition, by Mr. Douglas and
bis friends, seems to be, that the Southern democra
cy agreed, in the Cincinnati Convention ot l$Z6, to
what estops them from insisting on the propositions,
namely.- agreed to accept the “principles’* of the
Kansas and Nebraska Act, contaiued iu the <h els ra
tion of that act, that it is the “true intent and mean
ing of’ the “Act, not to legislate slavery into any
territory, or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, hut
leave the people thereof to form and regulate their
domestic iftsti’utioijs in their own way, subject on
ly Jo tbe Constitution of the United States.” The
Southern democracy certa nly did agree to accept
this declaration contained in the Kansas and Ne
braska Act, and if the argument anfeunta to an en
gagement not to insist qn.the rights of the South,
expressed in the propositions aforesaid, it was at
least a gratuitous surrender of those rights. We re
ceived nothing in exchange for the rights surrend-
etv<i. .. .
But if is not true, thut the nrgeement amounts same persons may well be delegates to both—hav-
to'any such engagement. What is the agreement ? ing to make but one journey. And there maybe
f*xi>tc*d before tin* adoption of th*- Con&tituti >n, will
it is supposed, bo admitted by all. Bat if the^ right
existed^ before the adoption of the Constitution, it
must still exist, for any surrender of theright, or. of
any power over it, except that involved ju the pow
er to admit new States, is not to bo found in the Con
stitntion. And the Constitution itself says, that the
powers not delegated are reserved to the States or
ttMMfla
Congress then, does uot itself have the power to
impair or destroy slavery in the Territories; and if
it does not have that power, the Territories cannot
have it, for they can have only such power as they
derive from Congress.
Consequently an agreement between tbe North
ern and Southern democracy, that tne people of the
Territories might form this domestic institution as
they pleased, auljject only to the Constitution, was
not an agreemeut that tbe people of the Territory
might impair or destroy slavery, or an agreement,
that Congress should not be asked for protection to
slavery, in a case of necessity.
^ It follows, from what has been said, that the Cin
cinnati agreement does not bind the Southern de
mocracy to abstain from insisting on the principles
contained in the report of the -majority. If so, they
may, with honor, still insist on those principles.
Thus, then, if we go to the actual, literal agree
ment entered Into by the Northern and Southern
democracy, we find it such, that the Southern de
mocracy. are at perfect liberty to insist npon the
rights of the South as expressed in the report of the
majority. And the agreement itself, set down as it
is, in precise terms, is the only thing to go to.
Hence even if it were true that distinguished
men of the south had, in tlieir individual speeches
or writings, gone further than the agreement, the
fact would make no difference. The party would
still be bound to nothing beyond fhe agreement—
Bui, indeed, two things are to be borne in mind, in
*respect. to these speeches and writings; one, that
every composition is to be construed by its subject
matter, and, consequently, that any looseness or
largeness of expression, in those speeches or writ
ings^Js, if po3&ibhY.£oi be restricted to the dimen
sions of the agreement, for that was tbe subject mat
ter of the expressions ; the other, that the speeches
and writings were of a time previous to the decision
in tho Dred Scdtt case, a decision in which the
Court held that Congresscannot prohibit slavery in
a Territory, and ^consequently, a decision in which
they held that the Territory itself caunot do it, for
that derives ail tills power from Congress; a deci
sion, indeed, in which the Court used this language:
“The only powers conferred (on Congress) is the
power coupled with the duty of guarding and pro-
r Friday, May 18th,
State Democratic Conve
TO TIIE DEMOCRATIC VoTEp,
STATE OF GEORG? (
Tlio result of the National iw
ventton at Charleston has here u
you. So far there has been a
agree upon a Platform ofPrinctaU t 'S
a nomination of Candidates, a -^tii
delegates having withdrawn fromff' 1 -
tion, recommend a new set ofddfJr 1
the delegates from other SoutWl
Richmond, Va., for the pnrp ! .. ;o f !
and a portion of tho delegates pro; °
delegation immediately to the J
vention at Baltimore. These cot
may be participated in, to some e
people. There may be other vie,* 0
by some portions of the party ni ty"‘
And in the opinion of tho unde ^ '
seemingly conflicting views can
tectiug Ihe owner in his rights
Then, the propositions contained in the report of
the majority, are true; and there is nothing on the.
Score of honor, to prevent the «outhern democracy
from insisting on them. There is, therefore, no
good reason to the northern democracy, why they
should hot concede them.
It is, however, said by a few southern democrats,
that to insist on Congressional protection to slavery
in a territory, is to admit Congressional power to de
stroy slavery there. But this seems much like say
ing, that the power to the Constable, to keep the
peace, is a power to him to break the peace; that
tbe power to the Judge to administer justice, is a
power to administer injustice.
. The remaining question is, were the propositions
contained in the report of the* majority, important
to the south.'
TJicreforc the undersigned, E Jw
mittee, request the Democratic
State of Georgia to meet in ConvreS<M
delegates, at Milledgcville, on Moffi/. ^
day of June next, for the purpose" of 11
ing upon what course of policy shoBV 4 **
sued by them in the present emerr..?,'*
several counties to be entitled to
delegates that has been customary
ventions. Wc would respectfully rw. 1
county in the State to send delegate. t 0
vention.
PORTER INGRAM,
P. TRACY,
CHARLES MURPHY,
D. S. PRINTUP,
S. J. SMITH,
L. 1L BRISCOE,
HENRY CLEVELAND,
-- * t ta t i
Tho poor rulo -which works <
A wholly unfounded clamor his I
against the Telegraph for **supprti
in favor of Richmond and secession,
whereas, on the contrary, we
documents on both sides with perfects
tty. But mark you, kind reader; o
Richmond secession papers in this S
most prominent of which aro the Sava
publican and the Augusta Ckron. i „
not one of them has published a Letter k
of preserving the democratic party on ii
intervention principle. The Chronicle i]
tinel of yesterday, says he “sliaf/ C nA 5 f
give, in a few days, Ac letter of Ur. hu
but the same paper contains an attach al
Stephens' letter longer than the letter iwp.
also the letter of Mr. Cobb, which x*,
published by the Const;tutiotulir., i
week ago. Of ail the rest ofthe 1
pers—Democratic and ConstituUoat (ffij
no other one, as yet, has publishcjcri^J
a purpose to publish a documental an,-T
other side. The fact is, they ore alife j 1
to do it
PRECEPT AND EXAMPLE
Hero arc two pertinent illustrations:
1. Precept Nothing can be more na
the South, in the eyes of such sterling*
rights democratic prints as the Saixo
publican, ’Augusta* Chronicle & Ser,to(|
Milledgcville Recorder, than the alu
of Congressional Protection and the I
Secession by democrats. Eveiy
patriotism, in their judgment, c "
democratic party to stand by the I
cession and an independent candithtex.
the democratic party into several mutt.
It is a piece of fearful degradation zndrJ
Ifit be once nnderstood that slavery oan erisfc in ness to talk of going to Baltimore Dm
the Territories, only by a special taw of permission, democratic party of Georgia never look p |
that the territariai legislature msy impair or de- Ifor protection-*od.never instracted their l
stray it by legislation, that Congress is not, pn any ^ tes t0 f or j t . ), ut s m Vf , ;
««iA dvpd tjiftpusft nf fistrpmpbt nftPfiSSitv. to nasa ° .... . * . .
case, even the.c&se of extremest necessity, to pass
any law for its protection, slavery will never again
go'into any Territory. The proposition, thatit takes
an enabling law to carry slavery into a Territory, is
far worse than the Wilmot Proviso, for that proviso
leaves tho territories open to slavery, until they, are
closed sgainst it by a prohibitory law—whereas
this proposition would prevent them from ever be
ing open to slavery. No an oh enabling law would
ever be passed. The first comers into the territory
would be from the north, because the north is far
ahead ofthe south, in population, in poverty, andin
fanaticism on tho slavery question. They would al
ways be in sufficient force to prevent the passage of
such a law. And the Illinois resolutions amount to
saying that an enabling law is neeesssry. They “re
pudiate" "the doctrine that slavery is a federal in
stitution, deriving its validity in the several States
and Territories in which it exists, from the Consti-
must insist upon it, or be ctermllj {
2. Example. A “ Constitutional I
vention” met at Milledgeville lasts
passed resolutions insisting on
Protection. Delegates aro sent ttli
who put aknown Wilmot provisoistfcil
dent's Chair and another on their at
then adopt the OmsiittstioH of ttlif
S'ates a thing which was supposed tok
eflectually done about sixty yens i
which has been sworn to by eveiy i
in office ever since that time. Sian
ed in the Convention whenever tics
mentioned, and yet we have notyrt 1
word of complaint from either tl-e ;
tutton, instead of being a mere municipal institution, Republican, the Augusta Chronicle i
existing in auch States and Territories, under the w-., , ’t?„° ,,
Constitution.** Slavery is to exist in a Territory, on- | or Miiiedgeviilo. Recorder,
ly “under the laws thereof And the Illinois reso- !
lutious may doubtless be taken as a fair exponent of s'locU ol .Provisoes Bagged a tx
the sentiments of Mr. Douglas and his friends. Say.
The present public territory amounts to much The House successfully tabled fed
senth on n he\orther n nlt?orthe m 8 ta e ?rsures,a^ Territorial Governments hy .*««
much of the tatter part of it rich in minerals, and
otherwise valuable. It includes the Indian Territo
ry south of Kansas, which is every way well adapt
ed to slave tabor. There is a prospect of acces
sions of an indefinite quantity of territory still fur
ther south—territory that hungers and thirts for
slave tabor. Is tbe South prepared to surrender all
chance for a part in this immense domain—a do
main as much her’s os the North’s ? If she is not,
the assertion and maintenance of the principles
contained in the report of the majority is, to ner,
of the utmost importance.
So much for the reasons of the majority of the
Georgic delegation, for withdrawing from the Con
vention.
As to the reasons for their subsequent-conduct:
At tiie time when the withdrawing delegations re-
twenty-nine majority; some Republic,
amongst the number. Each bill oonu.|
Wilmot Proviso.
The above is from our telegraph c
of Saturday morning. Wc tell you, .t
was a raking shot among the pigtail
means something. Consider that in lid
ly every Northern p.dui.-iati :i.—>: J
of Congress to MAS akngjr in If
rics, and it will be acknowedged
progressing.
LETTERS AND POSITW-Vr-
We publish, this morning, Letter fr]
AV IUH HUJC wwm IIIC nuuutaniug ucicftamma h c- | , ‘ , , e ’ r » r r -k
tired from the ConventioD/it was taken by all, as an ( btephens, Mr. Toombs, ana Judge Lc
First District. The first has rtready
fore the public, in the Constitutionals I
accomplished fact, that the platform question was
It is two-fold; first that Congress shall not legislate
slavory into any territory; secondly, that the peo
ple of a territory shall be left free to form tbelr do
mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to
tilt* (’oii.-titutioii.
As to tbe first part. Asking Congress to protect
slavery in a territory, when necessary, is not asking
Congress to “legislate slavery into” the territory ; it
is. on the contrary, assuming that slavery already
exists there, but needs no protection. And this as
sumption is legitimate. It has already been shown
that when a slaveholder settles in a territory, the
laws of his State follow him, aud protect bis right
to his slaves in tho territory ; and this by virtue of
tlio fact, that ho is tho citizen of a State that, in
common with the other States, is sovereign over the 1
territory. In addition, it may now bo stated that
the riupreme Court baa Uecidecl, that shivery exists
in the territories, without any special Act carry
ing it thither; nay, In spite of a special Act-declar
ing that it shall not exist in them. Tho owner of the
slave DreJ Scott carried him into a territory, and
iuto a territory north of the line of 36 deg. 30 min.,
time when the prohibition of slavery above
clearly in favor of maintaining the i
the party on the non-intervention pri
so we understand Messrs. Toombsfidb
Mr. Toombs takes the Majority Plitrtaj
measures of tho ultimate demand,
AtSrMrowlthdXwai"(ffrthVreSriiig.delegatJon, wilirog to accept, os an instalmea^
' ~ kg' non-intervention principle, with » ■
squatter sovereignty negation. Atnc-"r‘B
different phases of opinion which jj
tmJ nniwiiini in the prints, ws wfl
Savannah resolutions atone dcnoun^S
tempt to accommodate differences it
The great mass, including the nujontJ
ding delegates, as represented by tb'
man, Judge Benning, are in feverJj
effort to harmonize the Nationil fl
organization. So much- appears u * (
and if we can further agree to
explicit avowal of the non-intcrrft- ^_;
pie as understood in the ”
strongest hope of rallying again v*r
tional Democratic party of tte ^
making successful issue with h 5 '"-.
canism. If this reunion can not b
ire confess it will look much to os_* ■
up the fight under a common govern* |
TIIE “CONSTITUTIONAL"
Strikes no responsive chord, b (
born, without rebound, life or
a curious fact—an unprecedented f(t l
how do you account for it? ‘JT
we think it is, due to the W**
of the utter powerlessness'md n-
of tlie ticket and the
pose any check to Black
is of no use, in the way
for conservative action. If
reason, wc don’t know what is. .
nomination for President evrt
public like this one. The g**V (
vote of the country is ^ ou r U ( r, j
tho result at Baltimore. It WLj
if wc can secure a lair unexccp , ,1
date—it will fall, into line
him. If we split, there will
every man to his own "'ay.
AUGUSTA CHRONICLE £
WfJB^the Atlanta
tribulation, is calling loudly up- . t^l
tihcns, Johnson a:.d McD°n*W t|
horn.’’ The Macon Tdegr»Piy,yl
shaky, and hardly knows ; j
Joes not sustain the Doughs i.jj
looks lovingly and hopefully
The Columbus Times ld<
on acconnt of sickness ofthe
exceptions, ail the DemocraWF
trtUIr* irifh the Secru ,
Russell fhe Chairman of the Virginia delegation,
“rend the resolution as sgreed upon by all the
Southern delegations who remained in the Conven
tion, and the New York delegation. He wss in
formed that there was strength enough to pass it,
\S lion in urdt-r "
Thus, then, it will be perceived, that the question
of a platform will, in all probability, be again open
ed in the Convention when it assembles st Balti
more. That question is not beyond tho power of
the Convention, as I was assured by its President,
Gen. Cushing.
Under these ciraumsUnces. tbe separate Conven
tion, wishing to take all the chances for attaining its
Object, from the voluntary concession of the other
convention, merely adopted the resolution which
has been stated, inviting the Democratic party of
the United States, in favor of tho platform of tho ma
jority of tho States, to meet in Richmond, one week
oeforo the reassembling of the other Convention at
Baltimore.
Such a Convention as that invited to assemble at
Richinoud will furnish an opportunity for securing
concert of action, in tho matter of obtaining a prop
er platform from tbe Baltimore Convention, ami al
so for securing concert of action in tho matter of the
measures to be adopted, in case the hopes of a prop
er platform from the Baltimore Convention should
be disappointed.^ The times of the assembling of
the two Conventions are so near together, that the
other good reasons why the same persons should be
delegates to both Conventions.
It only remains to say, that the majority of the
Georgia delegation recommend, that a Convention
of the Democratic party of Georgia be called, and
that that Convention appoint a set of delegates to
attend both tho Richinoud and tho Baltimore Con
ventions—there seeming now to be a disposition in
tho latter convention to concede something on the
platform. HENRY L. BENNING,
Chairman of the Georgia Delegation.
I low Many of
the Georgia Delegates went
into tiie Disunion Convention at Charleston?
It is understood but four. If thci c were any
the party, especially from the southern wing ofthe | that line was unrepealed. Dred Scott insisted, that
jMBi o o m9 ,, party. According to Mr. Douglas and his friends, I ^rhen thus carried into that territory, he became
send we are sure it is just what might have been an-1 ocratic Convention to be held at Selma on the the de< ‘ lan4t ion means: First, That slavery doe» not,, j- ree . But the Court held, that ho did not; held,
Con- ticipated from him in tliis crisis. WUl not the 4th June liml cannot exist in 14 Territory, until it is introduced . that tlie prohibition was unconstitutional. And this
I 1 ... ■ . . . _ v | 7lu (harp. llV Ifltvi (liaruti ” Th** 1 . . •
more will some one give the public their names? j sincerely hop<^ ],' aD Jand
State are deciriediy with the ^
sincerely , hope that
Let us have the Record—give us Light. Geor- i consent to be
gia never has been committed to this faction— j over t0 D' e enemy. ,• c ] sns' 01 *’.
never will be. Four Delegates cannot drive Is the Chronicle & ‘- 1 -• :*■
Georgia] out of the Democratic Faintly. These serve the reputation j,rate. 8 ;] |
youngsters may try "to precipitate Revolution" i willing to forfeit it, in . ^ .jon \
but the sober, the virtuous, the wise will not the final division am
follow them. FUNCIl. ; cratic pat ty ?
a -‘self constituted
„„ tlie Baltimore Con- ticipated from him in tliis crisis. Will not the 4th June “ | and cannot exist in a Territory, until it.is futrodneed [ thattlio prohibition was uuconstitutional. And this sa^^Thc Sav^ah'Renub^n^Wnkf’kta j "Thatl’fthe phrase of m th-
ri ; r25d- ft „S2aT m »rfAcco^ ngto ad,* 1 *tchintheA„ K ,*ta P a. 1 i, h rS^
••tat tin m. • , t, Kill lo^al in iftiiu and . end such cu k gales r*.s nave (no assemble on Saturday next, in a spirit of mu-! pers a meeting had been held in Mobile on Sat- protection in a Territory. Third, That a Territorial i paying, that the right to hold slaves in a territory, | party, after its dissolution at Charleston. Prob- of Bibb who ~ ,n a
• " good of the whole country at heart—not self, tual forbearance and toleration, :ind determine ) nhrM nrormiu in u*>.,^. I Legislature has power, atleast. bv“uufrk*ndJv”leg- i without anv snecial enactment giving the . a blv mnd nf thn n4 nA K nimh I
tied pc
whether th>
'j'l.o.u 1 ‘I™ 1 of jdatfon
fore-it'd. There Is in my judument, noth Ing to ft__
from ilu* “irrepressible conflict,’, vl which ire hear
[According to a despatch in the Augusta pa- , property is, in no case, entitled to Congi
rs a meeting had been held in Mobile on Sat- > protection in a Territory. Third, That a Territorial ( raying,That the right to hold slaves in a territory, j party, after its dissolution at Charleston. Prob-1 of Bibb who askea in ^ a ur^
ual forbearance and toleration, and determine I urday night previous, in which the seceders i pf g^hiturehns power, at least, by “uDfrieDdJWMeg- exists without any special enactment giving the a bly most ofthe Opposition papers, of which 1 leading men of the Mate 1 . , rI v.
—*--— 1 ■ ■■ .... i-i
resolutions ot theiate Illinois j Congress to legislate slavery into the territories.— / Subject, fortunately, the question IS not one j mittCC. tol>0 ,, . n ^ it I s *
**-->■ mona would carry an aiinusaioB, that ala-1 for them lo determine." (The Dictionary worn
, - •“ 1,1 ■" 1 —“US man loiurauiiu- aim ujiuauuii, aim uvu rmino i ur.lav night previous, in which the seceders »i;'™‘“ r '““pi'»t'tii
,b, I aid tired of platforms. Givens the Cinein- to take measure* which shall best secure the were sustained and delegates annotated to a ' m““'7 n * t&, re pa ' r ? r , d £-
IY " H : Dnsl Scott decision. ' unity of the National Democracy, on a fair plat- j State Convention at Montgomery, on the «h j Jmp"y s^pufetae reS
tar j 1 lint will satisfy all but the disunionist& 1 form and c&ndidAtc f I Juoc, j J Convention; which app
tv-.'
appointed delegate* to tbe 1 buck» aeo