his was in substance,
and almost identically in language, the extreme creed put forth by
the Southern Democratic senators in the winter of 1858-59, after
the "popular sovereignty" campaign of Douglas against Lincoln. It
was the most advanced ground ever taken by the statesmen of the
South, and its authorship was generally ascribed to Judah F.
Benjamin, senator from Louisiana. Its introduction in the Charleston
platform was intended apparently as an insult to Douglas. The
evident purpose was to lay down doctrines and prescribe tests which
Douglas could not accept, and thus to exclude him, not only from
candidacy, but from further participation in the councils of the
party.

QUARREL OF DEMOCRATIC FACTIONS.

The courage of the Northern Democrats was more conspicuously shown
in their resistance to these demands than in the declarations which
they desired to substitute. They quietly abandoned all their
assertions in regard to popular sovereignty, refrained from any
protest against the doctrine that the Constitution carried slavery
as far as its jurisdiction extended, and contented themselves with
a resolution that "inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the
Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a
Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress
under the Constitution of the United States over the institution
of slavery within the Territories, the Democratic party will abide
by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upon
questions of Constitutional law." This was perhaps the best device
practicable at the time; and had it been adopted with Douglas as
the candidate, and a united Democracy supporting him, it is not
improbable that a successful campaign might have been made. But
it was a makeshift, uncandid, unfair, cunningly contrived to evade
the full responsibility of the situation. It was a temporizing
expedient, and did not frankly meet the question which was engaging
the thoughts of the people. Had it succeeded, nothing would have
been settled. Every thing would have been postponed, and the crisis
would have inevitably recurred. So far as the Supreme Court could
determine the questions at issue, it had already been done in the
Dred Scott decision; and that decision, so far from being final,
was a part of the current controversy. There was, therefore,
neither logic nor principle in the proposition of t