« PreviousContinue »
sented to the people; borne down to-day, it would rise up tomorrow; and I stood then on the same general plea which I am making now. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] and myself differed at that time, as we do now."
On May 15 and 16 Senator Douglas replied as follows to Senator Davis:
The facts stated in the speech of the Senator from Mississippi conclusively show that the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, or popular sovereignty, or non-intervention, as the Senator has indifferently styled it in different parts of his speech, did not originate with me in its application to the Territories of the United States; that it was distinctly proclaimed by General Cass in what is known as his Nicholson letter; that the issue was then distinctly presented to the country in the contest of 1848; that General Cass became the nominee of the Democratic party with a full knowledge of his opinions upon the question of non-intervention; that he was supported by the party on that issue; that the same doctrine of non-intervention was incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, in opposition to the views and efforts of the Senator from Mississippi, and in harmony with the views and efforts of myself; that it was reaffirmed by the Democratic party in the Baltimore convention of 1852; that General Pierce was elected President of the United States upon this same doctrine of non-intervention; that it was again affirmed by the Congress of the United States in the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854; and that it had its first trial, and yielded its first fruits, upon the plains of Kansas in 1855 and 1856.
These facts conclusively disprove and refute the charges so often made in the Senate Chamber within the last year, so erroneously and so unjustly made against me, that I have changed my opinions in regard to this question since 1856. The Senator from Mississippi has done me a service: he has searched the records with a view to my condemnation, and the result of his researches is to produce the most conclusive and incontestable evidence that this charge of having changed my opinions on this question, which was made the pretext for my removal from the Committee on Territories, was not true. He tells you frankly, what the world knew before, that he had always opposed this doctrine of non-intervention; that he and I always differed upon that point. He always regarded it as a fallacy; I as a sound principle. He claims that, after it has yielded its