Secession Era Editorials Project

[Home] [Nebraska] [Sumner] [Dred Scott] [Harper's Ferry] [Search]

No Title.

Raleigh, North Carolina, Register [Whig]

(8 March 1854)

"The non-intervention doctrine is not Whig, but Cass, Douglas, Democratic doctrine." -- Standard

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upon which Senator Douglas proposes the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, be it remembered, is, that it has been superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850; while the Congressional record shows that he has avowed doctrines which strike at the dearest rights and most sacred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 territories! or, at least, that it would be no violation of southern rights to do so!

[Previous] [Next]

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 Furman University.