"1. That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in violation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions."

The succeeding resolutions contain a pledge to abide by the compromise measures of 1850, including particularly "the act for reclaiming fugitives from service and labor" and "to resist all attempts to renew anti-slavery agitation." It reäffirms the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, and Mr. Madison's Virginia Report of 1799-(embracing the Southern doctrine of “State Rights.")

To this summary of the former testimonies of the party, the Convention adds others, "to meet more distinctly, the issue of a sectional party, subsisting on anti-slavery agitation," etc., namely:

The Convention "recognize and adopt the principles" of the Kansas-Nebraska bill-"non-interference by Congress with slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia," declaring this to be "the basis of the Compromise measures of 1850, confirmed both by the Democratic and Whig parties, in the election of 1852." It recognizes the right of the people of the Territory "to form a Constitution with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union, UPON TERMS OF PERFECT EQUALITY WITH THE OTHER STATES."

The remaining Resolutions magnify the sacredness of "State rights"-the importance of "resisting all monopolies and exclusive legislation, for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many” --and upholding "the compromises of the Constitution." They also indorse "the Monroe doctrine," anticipate free communication between the Atlantic and Pacific, recommend "every proper effort to insure our ascendency in the Gulf of Mexico," [a hint concerning Cuba,] and wind up with expressions of "sympathy" for the [filibustering ?] efforts "which are being made by the people of Central America."

This platform, it will be seen, was very skillfully contrived. Many of its elements were well calculated to be popular, and especially to please and satisfy the old adherents of the party. The seeming fairness of allowing the people of the Territory to determine their own institutions, was quite attractive to those who had

never thought of taking the negro into the account of human beings, and who had forgotten that majorities can not take away inalienable rights. By no party not planted upon these forgotten truths was such a platform to be properly dissected and exposed.

The plausibility of the "Democratic" plea, and the secret of its popularity and its power, even in Northern communities, may be seen by the following extract from one of the journals of that party:

"It has been the Democratic policy to regard the people of a Territory, when organized like the people of a State, capable of self-government. No power on earth can prevent any State in the Union, new or old, under the Federal Constitution, from becoming a slave State when its people choose. It is, therefore, and must ever remain a question with the people of a State to dispose of for themselves, and the Democratic party propose to leave the same question with the same people while yet a Territory-regarding the people of a Territory precisely as wise while a Territory as they will be when they are the people of a State. But modern 'Republicanism' insists that Congress ought to legislate for them, and this is the point in issue. Let those who have confidence in, and those who distrust the capacity of the people for self-government, whether in a State or a Territory, whether in an old country or in a new, range themselves upon this question accordingly.

"The Democrats will meet the issue fairly, directly, and boldly, and have no fear for the result. It was an alleged grievance by our fathers that the British Parliament would not permit them to legislate for themselves, but insisted on the right to legislate for them, when the Colonies held the same relation to Parliament that the Territories do to the Congress."

On the basis of this argument it was easy for this editor and his Northern associates to deny that either themselves or their party had any desire to assist in extending the area of slavery. They only desired, they said, to preserve the constitutional rights of the States, and the equal right of the people of the States and of the Territories, to self-government. To the charge of being pro-slavery on account of this concession, they could give their indignant denial. They only conceded the same right to Kansas which the "Republicans” themselves conceded to Missouri-the right of maintaining slavery, if they thought proper. If the "Democrats” were to be branded as pro-slavery, for vindicating this right in Kansas, why might not the "Republicans" be thus branded, for conceding it to Missouri?

This was the plea. And as the Republicans had conceded the constitutional right of the States to maintain slavery, a large proportion of the Democratic party, at the North, believed their party to be no more pro-slavery than the Republican. There could be no difference in principle, between them. If it were right to allow slavery in one part of the nation, it could not be wrong to

allow slavery in another part of the same nation. If the Constitution and State Rights ought to prevent Federal interference in the one case, why not in the other? The difference, at best, could be only in degree. The two parties were agreed in respect to the proper treatment of all, or nearly all the slavery that actually exists in the country. The only difference was in respect to the small remaining fraction, and in respect to the location of future increase.

Whatever of fallacy there may be to be detected in such deductions from the premises of "Constitutional protection to Slavery in the States "-premises held in common by both the contending parties-it may be recorded as a historical fact that nothing but the apparent force of such reasonings, on the basis of the "Republican" concessions, has saved the Northern wing of the Democratic party from utter annihilation. How those reasonings should have been met, is the question.

Another question, nevertheless, returns to us:

WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM?

How much was actually meant by the apparent recognition of the right of the people of the Territories to frame their own institutions, may be learned by the encomiums bestowed, by the same Convention, on the administration of President Pierce, by whom the Missouri invaders had been assisted to overthrow that right, and also by their nomination of Mr. Buchanan, whose indorsement of those acts of the President was equally unequivocal.

The hearty approval of the Editor of the Richmond Enquirer, Mr. Ritchie, by whom (as has been shown) the doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty" had been wholly repudiated, and who was a member of the Convention, is equally significant. Immediately after the Convention, Mr. Ritchie wrote the following, which appeared as editorial in that paper of June 6th:

แ

"With the utmost possible precision and emphasis of language, these resolutions affirm the great vital principles, first, of the constitutional guarantees of Slavery; and secondly, of the equality of the States, with respect to their sovereign dignity and political rights. In equally clear and conclusive terms, the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty is repudiated by the platform of the Democratic party."

The Richmond Enquirer is the leading Democratic paper of the South, and, on this point, speaks the sentiments of leading Southern statesmen of all parties. No Northern Democratic statesman, or editor of any note, is known to have dissented from this position.

2

"CAN ANY SOUTHERN MAN DOUBT?-It is almost a work of supererogation to offer further proofs upon the entire soundness of James Buchanan upon the question of the constitutional rights of the South. The issue has been fully made, and, upon argument, the South has decided to cast her votes for the Cincinnati nominees, whose past history and present attitude show them to be thoroughly reliable. What reason is there for the theory that Buchanan is a 'sectional' candidate, should the whole South go for him? He stands upon a platform of the equality of X the States, and of full and exact justice to every section of the Union. The platform and the candidates were adopted by the vote of the united Democracy, representing every district of every State of the Union. The Democratic party is the only party that maintains the same ground in every State in the Union. The great features of the Democratic platform, which James Buchanan has fully and squarely indorsed, and of which he is a fair embodiment, are the equal rights of all the States and sections, the quieting of the anti-Slavery excitement, and the guardianship of the honor and interest of the nation."-Richmond Enquirer of Aug. 27th, 1856.

The following, from the Charleston (S. C.) Mercury, is an extract of a speech by Hon. Laurence M. Keitt, M.C.:

"Sir, the next contest will be a momentous one. It will turn upon the question of Slavery and the constitutional rights of the South. The South should establish in the platform the principle that the right of a Southern man to his slave is equal, in its length and breadth, to the right of a Northern man to his horse. She should make the recognition of the right full, complete, and indisputable."

This shows the meaning of "State Equality." It means the equal right of Southern Slaveholders and of Northern farmers, to take their property, whether horses or negroes, wherever they please, and to be equally protected by the Federal Government in those rights!

The Daily Union and American, (Nashville, Tenn.,) May 17th, 1856, gives an account of a discussion in the State Legislature "a short time previous," and records the following:

Messrs. Baily, Smith and others went so far as to assert, in effect, that Slavery could only be carried where it is protected by local legislation; which is in direct denial of the doctrine of the South, that the Constitution of the United States recognizes Slavery, and protects it wherever that instrument extends. These are facts, hard, stubborn facts, which no ingenuity can evade, or sophistry pervert."

This is an explicit affirmation of the duty of the Federal Government to protect slave-property, in every part of the United States, by its paramount authority. And this is affirmed to be "the doctrine of the South." It is certainly the doctrine in process of enforcement by the Federal troops in Kansas. It is the doctrine of the Cincinnati Democratic platform, (as expounded by Mr. Ritchie,) and of Mr. Buchanan, (who declared himself to be the platform,) and of the party that has supported Mr. Buchanan.

This last statement, together with its logical consequences, is embraced fully in the extract that follows:

THE TRUE ISSUE.-The Democrats of the South in the pending canvass can not rely on the old grounds of apology and excuse for Slavery; for they seek not merely to retain it where it is, but to extend it into regions where it is unknown. Much less can they rely on the mere constitutional guarantees of Slavery, for such reliance is pregnant with the admission that Slavery is wrong, and, but for the Constitution, should be abolished. Nor will it avail us aught to show that the negro is most happy and best situated in the condition of Slavery. If we stop there, we weaken our cause by the very argument intended to advance it; for we propose to introduce into new territory human beings whom we assert to be unfit for liberty, self-government, and equal association with other men. We must go a step further. We must show that African Slavery is a moral, religious, natural, and probably, in the general, a necessary institution of society. This is the only line of argument that will enable Southerners to maintain the doctrines of State Equality and Slavery Extension. For, if Slavery be not a legitimate, useful, moral, and expedient institution, we can not, without reproof of conscience and the blush of shame, seek to extend it, or assert our equality with those States having no such institution.

"Our Northern friends need not go thus far. They do not seek to extend Slavery, but only agree to its extension, as a matter of right on our part. They may prefer their own social system to ours-it is right that they should. But, while they may prefer their own social system, they will have to admit, in this canvass, that ours is also rightful and legitimate, and sanctioned alike by the opinions and usages of mankind, and by the authority and express injunctions of Scripture. They can not consistently maintain that Slavery is immoral, inexpedient, and profane, and yet continue to submit to its extension. We know that we utter bold truths, but the time has arrived when their utterance can be no longer suppressed. The true issue should stand out in bold relief, so that none may mistake it."-Richmond Enquirer of June 16th, 1856.

It can not be mistaken, except by those who refuse information. It will be found instructive to follow these developments still further:

"The ensuing Presidential canvass will turn almost solely on the question of Equality. None can consistently or effectively contend for State Equality who do not hold that the institutions of the South are equally rightful, legitimate, moral, and promotive of human happiness with those of the North. If slave society be inferior in these respects to free society, we of the South are wrong and criminal in proposing to extend it to new territory, and the North right in exerting itself to the utmost to prevent such extension. But I go further: We must contend ours is the best form of society; for social organisms so opposite as those of the North and the South, can not be equally well suited to people in all other respects so exactly alike. We must surrender the doctrine of State Equality and Slavery extension, unless we are prepared to meet the attacks of Black Republicanism on our institutions, by making equally vigorous assaults on theirs. The President, in his Annual Message, has clearly indicated this as the proper mode of defensethe true answer to Abolition."-Charleston (S. C.) Mercury of April 1st, 1856.