Staunton Vindicator

GRAND RECEPTION!

THE MASSES IN MOTION! ! !

One Hundred Guns Fired! !

Last Saturday was a glorious day for the Democracy of Augusta. Agreeably to arrangement, a committee of reception left on the cars on Saturday morning to meet Judge Douglas at Gordonsville, and escort him to Staunton. A large number of persons had assembled at that place, and on the arrival of the Richmond train, Judge Douglas made his appearance on the platform, and was greeted with loud applause. W. F. Gordon, Esq., introduced him to the audience, which Judge D. acknowledged by a few remarks delivered in a conversational tone. On arriving at Charlottesville, between 300 and 500 persons had collected at the Depot. W. F. Gordon, Esq., introduced him in a beautiful and eloquent address, and Judge D. responded in a speech of fifteen minutes in length, which breathed a healthy national sentiment, and was frequently applauded. Thence to Staunton, groups of men, women and children were assembled at each Depot to catch a glimpse of the great statesmen and patriot, who, whatever the political difference, they could not withhold from him a tribute of admiration. At Staunton he was met by an immense concourse of people, who anxiously and eagerly awaited his appearance on the platform, while the "deep- mouthed" cannon thundered forth its welcome in an hundred rounds. Judge D. was placed in a carriage which was ready for the occasion, and was escorted to the platform in the Court-yard, by the Staunton Artillery, under the command of its gallant and courteous Captain, J. D. Imboden, Esq., who, forgetting for the present his party association, contributed his share to a cordial welcome to the honors and hospitalities of the city, of our distinguished guest.

The largest audience we have ever seen congregated in Staunton, assembled in and around the Court-house yard to see and hear Mr. Douglas. The audience was variously estimated at from 2500 to 3500 persons.--His appearance on the stand was greeted by three tremendous cheers, followed by a general murmur of delight and satisfaction running through the crowd.

Gen. Wm. H. Harman welcomed him to the Valley of Virginia, and introduced him to the vast throng in attendance substantially as follows:

JUDGE DOUGLAS: I am commissioned by the good people of Augusta, in their name and behalf, to extend to you a most cordial and hearty welcome to the Valley of Virginia; and to assure you of their unaffected appreciation and admiration of your high character, great talents, unswerving devotion to principle, and lofty patriotism.

I am not here, sir, as a mere partisan to extend to you the homage of party; but as one of the people, in the name of the people, to give you the assurance which your devotion to the best interest of the whole people of the Union during the past quarter a century, in so eminent a degree entitle you--the assurance, free, hearty and unqualified, that the people of the Valley of Virginia desire you to enter and be cherished in their homes, as your great qualities of heart and mind are already cherished in their best affections.

Sir, the period in the history of our glorious country has arrived when the people are called upon to arise in their majesty, and under the guidance and leadership of those true, faithful and tried servants, preserve to themselves and their posterity the priceless inheritance bequeathed them by their Revolutionary ancestry, which has been endangered and put in peril by the wickedness of politicians and placemen who have sought and are seeking to be their masters.

To you, sir, all eyes are turned! In this crisis, involving our dearest interests, we have the right to expect, and do expect, of you, the same loyal devotion and self- sacrificing love of our common country which has characterized and distinguished you during your past service in the councils of the nation.

The people, guided and directed by the patriotism and wisdom of noble leaders and counsellors, of which I sincerely trust you may be the chief, will roll back the swelling tide of sectionalism and fanaticism which threatens to engulf them-- will preserve in all its fair and beautiful proportions this magnificent republican edifice reared by our fathers.

Again I bid you welcome, thrice welcome, to Augusta--to a portion of whose fair daughters and sturdy sons I now have the honor to introduce you.

Ladies and fellow-citizens, I have the honor and profound pleasure to introduce you to the great chieftain who has been selected to bear the banner of the National Democracy--America's noblest, most gifted and valiant son--the man whose eloquence inspires the hearts of patriots, and at the sound of whose voice placemen, place-hunters, and spoils-men cower and grow pale--Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois.

After these remarks, Judge Douglas came forward amidst vociferous cheering.-- He thanked the audience for the kind and cordial reception that had been extended him, not only here, but throughout the State of Virginia wherever he had been.-- The proverbial hospitality of Virginians had prepared him to expect a courteous welcome to the hallowed soil of the Old Dominion, but not for the generous greeting that had been extended him everywhere, irrespective of party.

He came to compare notes with the people to ascertain whether there was not some common ground upon which all could stand in defense of the Union and the Constitution. He then proceeded to discuss the relations of the Colonies to the mother government, as illustrative of the Territorial doctrines he was advocating. The Colonies did not desire separation from Great Britain--they averred in every petition they could to the mother government, but at the same time demanded the privilege of regulating their own affairs in their own way in respect to their domestic concerns. The first quarrel between the Colonies and Great Britain occurred with Virginia and on the slavery question. Seventy years previous to the Revolutionary war, Virginia demanded that the African slave trade should be restricted; for the reason that the landing of the savage negroes in the midst of the settlements, while the border was lined with Indians, rendered life and property insecure, and hence, the colony of Virginia passed laws unfriendly to the trade, levying heavy penalties upon the importation of slaves. British merchants protested, the King in council issued an order forcing Virginia to have slaves whether she wanted them or not. The struggle continued until 1772, when the House of Burgesses of Virginia passed a memorial to the King, setting fourth that if the people of the Colony were not permitted to regulate that institution to suit themselves, His Majesty would lose that portion of his Dominions. The only question was whether an American citizen, under the Constitution, was not entitled to as many privileges in a Territory as was the British subject in the Colonies? If he was not, then it was difficult to tell what was gained by the revolution. The people of a Territory claim what our fathers fought for as their rights in the Colonies--to regulate their own affairs in their own way, under the Constitution. The colonies did not contend that they were sovereign, but that they possessed the inherent right to govern their own affairs.

Congress, he argued, could declare war, make peace, raise a revenue, coin money, maintain armies, establish navies, and do all those acts which are federal and not local, but government had no right to interfere between husband and wife, parent and child, or any other matter which is domestic and not federal. The Southerner could go to the Territory with his negro, and be entitled to the same protection under the local laws that the Northerner could have with his property. The first thing to be enquired after was, whether the local laws were friendly to the particular property token there. If they were not, then he would advise the emigrant to go some place else. If a merchant started to the Territory with a supply of liquors and found the Maine liquor law in force, he would be very apt to change his course. So with every other species of property. It was subject to the local law, and that generally represented the sentiment of the people. He here defended at some length the doctrine of the equality of the States and the citizens of the States in the Territories, and contended that Illinois and Virginia had precisely the same privileges, one not more nor less than the other. This doctrine he had defended and would continue to uphold as long as he lived. He was a law-abiding, Constitution- loving man. Each man with his property stood in the Territories upon the same ground, entitled to the same protection and subject to the same restrictions as the other. They were both alike to be governed by the local law.

He said that the North-west loved the Union as dearly, if not more so, than the people of Virginia. They were bound by marriage and kindred ties to both North and South, and if this Union should be dissolved, it would be cutting the heart- strings of those who had emigrated to the West, leaving their fathers, mothers, sisters and kindred behind in both sections of the Union. They of the North-west never intended to pay duty at the mouth of the Ohio river in following the waters of the Mississippi to the Gulf. They furnished the waters of the Mississippi, and intended to claim the privilege of navigating it free of duty into the broad ocean. He appealed to all to join in upholding and maintaining the Constitution, and in the assertion and defense of the equal rights of all.

He argued that the running of Mr. Breckinridge could have no other effect than to divide the Democratic vote in the Northern States, and thus render the chances of the election of Lincoln more probable.--The friends of Mr. Breckinridge--the bolters from the Baltimore Convention--were therefore, in effect, aiding in bringing about the success of the Black Republican candidate, which he should look upon as a great calamity to the country.

He said that he had been asked in Norfolk the other day by the Breckinridge Elector whether he thought the mere election of Lincoln would be cause sufficient to dissolve the Union: He answered, no. Any man who was elected President of the United States by the American people in conformity with the Constitution, must be inaugurated. If, after that, he attempted to make war upon the rights of any State or the citizens of any of the States, he would insist upon enforcing the laws, and hanging him as a traitor to his country ten feet higher than Virginia hung old John Brown.--There was no evil in the Union for which secession was a remedy. If government failed in accomplishing the end for which it was instituted, and became oppressive, there was no sufficient remedy but revolution.--He was maintaining the Constitution and laws of the country at every hazard and against all aggressors--he cared not whether they came from the North or the South.--He would exhaust every resource before he would appeal to the last resort, but if it came to that, he would unite in defending the rights of Virginia as readily as he would those of Illinois.

It was a pretty question to ask him whether he would help dissolve the Union in the event of the election of Lincoln, when the secessionists have inaugurated the very steps to accomplish that object in opposing him in the North. They bring about the election of Lincoln, and then ask him if he will not assist them in dissolving the Union because of that result? He answered emphatically, no!

As we shall publish hereafter a more extended and connected report of the remarks of the honorable gentleman on the main points of his speech, we have purposely omitted a notice of several less important ideas advance.

He concluded his very able, interesting and patriotic speech, by stating that he understood the Hon. Wm. Smith had recently made a speech in this place to a very large audience. (Mr. Smith had about 150 persons to hear him, not one-third of whom will vote for Breckinridge, after notices had been circulated for nearly a week.) In that speech he had read a letter from Mr. Buchanan, which raised a question of veracity between himself and the President. The following is the letter:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11, 1860.

My Dear Sir:

I have received your favor of the 8th inst, inclosing a printed extract from the recent speech of Judge Douglas at Concord. You inform me that you expect to be at the Charlottesville Convention, and "would like to know something of the interview referred to in that speech." According to this extract, the Judge states: "The President told me that if I did not obey him and vote to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people against their will, he would take off the head of every friend I had in office." It is unnecessary to quote the alleged reply of the Judge. Surely there must be some mistake in the report of the speech; because I never held any such conversation with Judge Douglas, nor any conversation affording the least color or pretext for such a statement. It was not in my nature to address such threatening and insulting language to any gentleman. Besides, I have not removed one in ten of his friends, nor one of his relatives. Even among those of his friends who have rendered themselves prominently hostile to the measures of the administration, a majority still remain in office. I might add, that I never held a political conversation with Judge Douglas on this or any other subject, since the day my first annual message was read in the Senate on the 8th of December, 1857; and I did not transmit the Kansas Constitution to Congress until the 2d of February, 1858, the question of slavery not having been decided by a vote of the people until 21st December.

Now, my dear sir, in writing thus to you I have transgressed a rule which I had prescribed for myself, not to contradict any statements assailing my public conduct and character until after the conclusion of my term of office. A statement, however, comes with such force from a Senator of the U. S. who is one of my constitutional advisers, and this, too, in a published speech delivered by him in his canvass for the highest elective office in the world, that I deem the present case a proper exception.

Yours very respectfully,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

Hon. WM. SMITH.

In regard to the point relative to the President's threat to ostracise his friends, he (Douglas) had made the statement in a public speech. The president denies it in a letter to a member of Congress. He could have no controversy with him about the matter. There were no witnesses to the conversation. As to the other point, that he had not removed his friends, he appealed to the record to contradict the assertion. He had not sought a controversy with the President on these points. The President had forced it upon him by writing him a letter to be read all over the country, and that after he had taken the stump against him. He left the matter to the consideration and verdict of the people.

Mr. Douglas here alluded to the charge that he was the "stump candidate." He said the reason which had prevented candidates heretofore from taking the stump was the fear of giving utterance to sentiments in one locality that would lose votes in another. He had no such fear. He had but one sentiment for all the sections of our common country, and could with equal freedom give utterance to them in the North or South, East or West. He declared he was not courting votes for the Presidency. If the people would put down the two sectional parties which are threatening the perpetuity of the Union--rebuke fanaticism both North and South-- he did not care who they made President.

He again thanked the audience for their marked attention, and said he should carry back with him to the prairies of Illinois the most grateful recollections of the generous hospitality which had been extended to him by the people of Augusta.

Mr. Douglas was then escorted to the residence of M. G. Harman, Esq., whose guest he was during his stay in the city.--A number of friends dined with him, and at night between three and four hundred of our citizens called to see him. He was serenaded by Turner's Cornet Band, in response to which he made a brief speech, thanking the members of the band, and renewing to the crowd his obligations for the many acts of kindness shown him while in Staunton.

On Sunday Judge Douglas was again visited by a number of our citizens, and on Sunday evening, in company with a few friends, left for Harrisonburg, where he met with a most cordial reception and made a speech on Monday.

At the close of Judge Douglas' speech on Saturday, Col. Bolling, of Petersburg, in response to repeated calls from the crowd, made a most excellent speech of a half hour's length.

Mr. Yost: As I notice in your last paper that you "tender the columns of the Vindicator to those of your party brethren who, following their honest convictions of right, differ from you," I would beg leave to submit the following:

Our political history has doubtless never been more interesting than now, and we feel that all who write or speak, either in favor of or against any candidate, or points at issue, should know what he does, so that he may "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

We very well know that many of those who write and speak against Mr. Breckinridge, (Mr. Douglas included) misrepresent him in a great measure, and assert things which they cannot sustain.

The Cincinnati platform, upon which Buchanan was nominated in '56, sums up the whole power of the Territories thus:

Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people in the Territories [not the Legislature] whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.

Thus it is defined that the right of the people of a Territory to settle the status of slavery begins only when they begin to form a Constitution, and not before.

Now this is what we want, and nothing more. The assertion that we want Congress to legislate slavery into the Territories, (which assertion was also made by Mr. Douglas on last Saturday,) we unhesitatingly pronounce false and absurd, and ask any man who has ever advanced such an idea, to prove it. We ask Congress to protect the property of all the people in the Territories against unconstitutional legislation, Northern Aid Societies, &c., so that the South may emigrate and have a chance to extend her Territory, and not be encompassed by those who together with the final overwhelming negro population, will crush us out of existence.

The Constitution of the U.S. says that Congress shall protect the people and property of all the States wherever its authority extends. Now does not its authority extend into the Territories? And are not slaves property? If so, is not Congress bound by the Constitution of these United States to protect slaveholders and their slaves in all Territories under its authority? This is what we ask, and is the only point upon which we differ from you: consequently, the assertion that we no longer stand upon the Cincinnati Platform--that we are bolters and disunionists--is groundless and foolish.