Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-05-16

in accordance with their sturdy pretensions
TO piety and patriotism or not. They pc.
tition, besiege, and implore us 10 do what?
Why, sir, to repudiate the principles oi
the Fedelal compact-tn violate the ma
tional Eailh--,o violate the rights Of private
1roperly--to trample upon the Constitu-
ton, which we have sworn to support,
and consequently 10 polute and blacken
our souls with the terrific crime of peJu-
ryi Yes, sir. all This do The abolitionisls
require at our hands, when they ask us
to abolish slavery-"as a great moral euit''
in the District of Columbia.
Blu, this is not all. The abolilionists
design TO effect the abolition Of slavery in
the States. also: and it is worse than idle
lit is dishonest and insolenlly hypocriti-
cal in them 10 pretend that their schemes
and efforts are limited TO the District OF
Columbia and The Territories. Every
body knows, and many Of the abolition
lists themselves confess, that such is not
the fact. II is as much their intention to
accomplish The abolition of slavery in The
States, as in the Territories, Or in this Dis
trict. Such being the case, then, let Us
examine, for moment, the nature and
tendency of The abolition movement. IL
will he acknowledged by all, that, prior
10 the organization of the Federal Govern
menl, the States were, in ali respects, and
10 all inlents and purposes, sovereig gn and
independent States or nations, and, as
such, no one State of course could inter-
lere with the rights or internal police Of
another State, without violation of in
ternaIional law. An attempt, therefore,
on the part of Massachusetts, for, in
stance TO abolish slavery in Georgia,
would have been trul and properly re-
garded by Georgia as an aggression up
on her national rights, an assault upon her
State sovereignty, and as virtual denial
of her indcpendepcy as 4 State or nation.
What would have been true Then, would
be equally true noU. Anv interference on
the part of Massachusetts with the subject
of slavery in Georgia, is as clearly wrong
las much an inlraclion Of international
|Iaw-snce the formation of the Federal
Government as it would have been prior
10 that event. The States, under the
Constitution, are as essentially and as alb
solulely sovereigl--where their sovereign
|ly is not limited by The CONSTITUENCIES
they w Aelore the formation oflhe Con-
s,i,utidh. And as slavery exists in the
S,ales--not by virtue of the Constitution,
hut by virtue of State Sovereignty alone
it necessarily follows that it is without and
beyond the power Of the Federal Govern
meut 10 abolish ii. The power to abolish
slavery in the States never having been
delegated 10 Congress, ss,cannol be exercised
bu Congress without violation of the
Fedora Constitution. On the subject of
slavery, the S,ales are not only indepen-
dent OF each other, hui also OF the General
Government. The Slates having reserv-
ed to themselves the rights fsovcrcisntv
-uot directly and explicitly y conceded to
the Federal Gnvernment--they are Just as
free to exercise those reserved rights as il
such Government had never been estab-
lished. This proposition hold to be self
evident. The right to hold slaves MOI hav-
ing been ceded 10 the General Govern
ment, but retained by the States; ii fol-
lows, that an attempt on the part of The
citizens of the non slaveholding States, or
Of Congress, to interfere with the instlu-
ton of slavery in any of the slave-holding
States, would he a violation of the rights
of sovereign and independent States or ma
tions, and, Of consequence, in direct and
positive contravenlion ofinIernational law.
The abolitionis,s, by warring against the
rights and sovereignty Of the States, en-
courage violation of the national faith,
sanction The infraction Of law, and endan-
ger the stability and integrity Of the FEEDER
al Union. "In taking this ground ito "a
dopl the language OF one ofthe most ori-
ginal thinkers aud energetic writers of The
age) they-lhe abolilionisls-sel the law
at defiance, and are either mob or band
of insurreclionists. In taking this ground
they justify all the awIess violence against
Which they have so vehemently decIuim-
ed. If Que class of the community may
set the laws at Defiance, why may not an
other! IF the aboliliopsists may set al
nought the International law, which gives
the slave holding States the exclusive
Jurisdiction of the slave question, why
may not other citizens say they have a
right, by mob law, 10 prevent them, If
they can, from doing it? 1t were not
difficult 10 convict the abolitonists OF
preaching the very doctrines the mobocrats
attempt to practice. They ought NOT. there
fore, to think il strange that they have been
but in too many instances the victims OF
lawless violence. When portion of the
community take it into their heads that
they are wiser than the law, they ought 10
be aware that they open the door to every
species Of lawless violence, uuchaiu the
tiger, and must be answerable for the con-
sequences"
What must he the certain and inevitable
tendency of the abolition movement, and
WHAT its moral and political results, if its