Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-08-29

rights and 10 say mat uiau e1 :; man buys
~ man: he does hold property IN lna y, nIea.
III "'ar1 .@i,s him, and disposes OF him a. p'I
n,u R;rbt or wrong, justly or un)ns's, ,,ss.
sur. States constitution has settled ms w.
ION More than this, property Is Inc 'i' Non
'o" o.,v of laws. and OF Government. 49, w.,
" s,ate of nature, has very mperiec. r f.o'
~ nome at all. of lille to property, apa1t -
" ", n..e.,ion. He enjoys, for tho Time oe''s'
wy he laws his hand on, and When ~
m uar,s with il, il is no longer his. inns peins
,ha ease. when society enters INTO 'has conpasa
LIED Government, any thing can DC n'au'
subject of property. vo.,ea ond com.
.,a,, ye are naturally led to the enquiry
pnv can This title become Invested! IS II ai'eS1
ed nv nv carrying him into Inc 'e'li.oi'e s;u.s,
corry him into Free State, Il becomes ei'e :,
al nct by The Constitution OF U. S; SO lar iroh y
rha, usliumen! provides that may fecldihi ,",
~ :, he escapes in'o IRE S'a'c; bnl hy M taw'
IL '.~ cou,ti; TIM fife Site fsi We a. know
edge ina, the States ar: sovereign ana inaePe'
emf Of each other and have tieh''o ahcish Sid.
very, and Use my slave by caiIyi g nun VI .
! Tree State, as inst p~Da ~ for my iaiiy, anu ~,
| nv violations OF lis laws. The case is very ui'-
iefcn, in The lerricr;e; hey do not % themselves
cons ue an independent s.yefeisn'y IKE S'a..
! They are subj ,ci 10 he 6 ,vernmen', h". .. "u5
| Sta'e but OF Congress, elh.r di"c'iy oi fta'eer
| w. nrdcy the C0n:ttltlon Now The Cons Eu''oi
| N NJ manner nerrupts or ih'ci.cles WI u.
| lie 10 my slave 10 The fer1'f0'tes, anl d"soi.,
confirms nd ESTABLISHES that Gle IN ~ %tss ~"
nro ao lose my Title ty Carrying hun mo ne
| ,.,,;,nr;s.a We lake ,.sue olh Mr.. Wi s'er
| when he saws that "the slave is te'd "a o. zee
| mill evidence shall be preserved t'rirve mat ne
| is a slave" When a man (and his ancestors
| before him,) has been publicly ant hot"riOu'ly
| slaye all his life, The prnPc,fg oi An1iaet, com
| mon sense teaches iha he shall re heid - 'e
Stare. until evidence, and pretty .hcna evinehce,
shat! be presented 10 prove hun entitled 70 MS rec
dom.
! Suppose thai New Mexico and Caliirnia did
| Dol contain one human being within 'h.ir imi'si
suppose that lhey had been arqn ed, hnt by con-
| lcsr, tut BY d,jtor. T-ii sou ietn man were
Ia pass into lhe.e terri ones viii his slave upon
! ha, stann. would ,if Webster expect 10 sue
| coed ;f he wer. 10 brig sui' asain, the Save
! hol!er in behalf u The slave, 10 recover MS
| freedom, That q na'a.el ii2hl2 lie had e1'
| acly Inc same natural i'gh.lo his freedom 10 Inc
Sac from which he was carried. but mr.
Ncb..er would say, ne positive law OF that Stale
| oyeI,sme his natural r.sni. Inc owner q INC
| slave wo.id reply, that hat posii,'e law mace
ms lille 10 hlGl perfect AZ rHnnesei ds Hi"ou ~
AS 10 his horse, which tile the C".s.ln.lun OF .he
i
nc would no mole lose his title 10 hin, BY carry
| ing him in'othe terri'o'es, than he would lose ms
Tile IL his ;:crse b. sides this, we do moi revert
10 state OF nalurein The territories entirely with
out government Congress has 10 govern hem IN
der The Constitution, and that Constitution sns
| tained our title in the States, and nowhere ihef'
eres with il in the territories.
What is slavery9 II is tie ownership Q. Nv
man beings as properly S ay"ry is not ihcon-
sIsent with the Constitution, because il IS moi
only not forbidden by il, but is sanctioned ahl
protected BY it. Then this ownership, which be-
gan in the Staes may continue in the territories
Slaves which were properly in the States remain
SO in The territories.
There is still another view OF this subject.
Throughout this whole argument be il remem'
bered, we are supposing The territories 10 De va
can't The General Government is bound 10
protect in The territories whatever is property IN
the States No State laws are in force in The ter
rories. The people who may enigrate 10 the
territories have no other government 10 look 10
for protection OF their persons and their properly
but the General Government The Constitution
in terms, projects that species OF property IN The
States; Congress is hourd 10 extend The same
protection 10 il, il carried 10 The territories The
Constitution no where makes any sort II discr
mnaian between what is progeny III Carolina
aad what is properly in New Yoi.. Il throws
us protecting shield alike over The slave Of the
Caroilnian and tie horse Of III New Yorker.
We hope We have succeeded in convincing
Messrs. Stephens and Daniel that il The new Ter
,i;oIies were vacant and hac been acquired by
discovery, an u CONGRESS had never exercised
The power OF extending the s!avehtl .cr. (adni
ing Tor The sake OF Argument that i, c'ala const'
iuionally eS,nde him slQue ioonld ~. a q.i'.
tile IL his freednz1 III b ing carried into \ t.
. y,toyiJs-L TINT H., ro,jJ Il NJ = 4 q SjlCs
We have PrOped, then, ha; h slavehnlcef has
The right, under The Constitution (M,Y'ca law
being out of the question, though not derived CT
pTessly from The Constitution, 10 carry his slave
into the territories and 10 hold him as a slave, al
ter he ss,s 'ae.e,
TRslConsttution makes il The duty Of The Gene
raj Government 10 project him in the enjoyment o
all his rieals in The territories. But Mexican law
prohibiting slavery, utterly destroys and annul:
This right. Is not such law, then, in The language
+ OF Mr. Stephens, wholly inconsistent with" oui
fundamental law2 Totally repugnant 10 the
Constitution Shall unrepealed Mexican Law
destroy right which would otherwise b. protect
ed and enforced by The courts if il did not exist
and to destroy which. if there were no such MeIi
can law, positive enactment OF Congress woulr
be necessary Surprising that Congress has tht
requisite power fol such enactment3 Mr.. Da
MEL himsel says that there is nothing IN the Con
; s,itulion inconsistent with the existence or non
existence of slavery. The Constitution protect,
slavery wherever ii finds II. According 10 Mr.
Steph ms, after The Shareholder gets mic TIC n&u
territories, Mexican unrepeaed law is 10 destroy
right, which wodlt Otherwise exist under, anC
! be protected 5y The Consru.oui
/ |, Mr.. S ephens' GuctfiIe, be true, il would b:
mss gross an m1astr Us VIC a on CT Re Con
tuition for Congress 10 low slavery in New
| Mexico and Ca!iiorHia-ior, according 10 this
I iei rgian Free SoIe:, these territories are al
, cadv Tree sui ms much 81 as Massachusetts
r Rev YORK! a slave would be as much emf.
',ad n his freedom if carried ia,o ;hem b. hi,
laser, as re- Woald &c II carried in'o enhgr o
n5sr Sac! Where, 'ren. vii yol & 4 any
- ctirE III ,hr c0hs;i uii.n tor a 81 al Con
4 S. @iicn is - tcpfiy" ,nan o; hi, l:osr'y il
efn ores already Tree, and 10 MAKE SAVE 81
n whcc The p;uni5iiinn o. slavery says
Ar Stephens is ss perfect and As Il elsa. IS
, o. same rrnhib.tion IN THs r-tE STATEs = THIS
USruA2 Docs The CO oru' mats skin make
IA CONSTITUTIONAL which would orh"rwle be III
Constitutional G rrv your ave into The TeW
territories, and NIX can uor' pca-d law make,
?m free strikes III tiers from his limbs, says
11r Stephens. Thr S. Constitution, 81 irseit,
S insufficient 10 oyerf,ie AID destroy this Nitx:-
an law, and 10 Keep him Save BIZ C.m
dsss Can keep him IN Saver. a Law, r Con.
aisss can 10 ha', 10 accomplish which re Cox.
sTiTuTIos alone. and OF its own inherent energy,
! t"iaiiy insuti:.er!
We have not We; done with Mr. Stephens
We will notice some o. his other positions in a
;uure editorial.
ALMOST A SURRENDER"
The Angus! electors, jus! passed, nave given