Secession Era Editorials Project
Raleigh, North Carolina, Register [Whig]
(8 March 1854)
"The non-intervention doctrine is not
Whig, but Cass, Douglas, Democratic doctrine." --
This is mere gas.
The Editor of the
"Standard" has not forgotten that the locofoco State Convention,
which assembled in this city, in June, 1850, following the lead of the Nashville
Convention, APPROVED of the Missouri Compromise line, and demanded
its explicit recognition, at that time, by Congress!
Mr. Calhoun, but a
short time previous to his demise, denounced the Missouri Compromise, and said
that it surrendered the principle of non-intervention, for which
the South had ever contended.
Yet, in opposition to the teachings of Mr. Calhoun, and in the face of all they had hitherto
said, and done, the locofoco party, in Convention assembled, gave their solemn
sanction and recommendation to a measure which they must have believed, -- if
what they had said was to be relied upon, -- surrendered the rights of the
South, and clearly conceded to Congress a power which they had
maintained it did not possess!
"Democratic doctrine, indeed!"
"Douglas" doctrine, too, is it?
Let us see.
The only ground upon which Senator
Douglas proposes the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, be it remembered,
is, that it has been superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850;
while the Congressional record shows that he has avowed doctrines which strike
at the dearest rights and most sacred interests of the slaveholding States.
As a proof of this, we copy the following extract from a speech delivered
by him in the United States Senate, on the 13th of March, 1850, and
which may be found in the
Congressional Globe, Vol. xxii. In reference to the action of
Congress upon the Territorial question, Mr. Douglas then and there said:
It is no violation of
Southern rights to prohibit slavery nor of northern rights to leave the
people to decide the question for themselves.
In this sense, no geographical section of the Union is entitled to any share
of the territories.
The Senator from South Carolina will therefore
excuse me for expressing the opinion that all of his complaints under this head
are predicated upon one great fundamental error - the error of supposing that
his particular section has a right to have a due share of the territories set
apart and assigned to it."
From the forgoing extract, it will be seen that Mr. Douglas unqualifiedly admitted the
power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
or, at least, that it would be no violation of southern rights to do
This document was produced as part of a document analysis project
by Lloyd Benson, Department of History, Furman University.
(Proofing info: entered and proofed by Lloyd Benson.)
This electronic version may not be copied, or linked to, or otherwise used for commercial purposes, (including textbook or publication-related websites)
without prior written permission. The views expressed in this
document are for educational, historical, and scholarly use only,
and are not intended to represent the views of the project contributors or