The Abbeville banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1847-1869, 1848-07-15

al o'hcr lssues'-we mean the right OF oc
cupying Territory acquired by the Govern
ment with slave property? The opinions
Of the Convention, touching this matter are
in the following words:
"That Congress has no power under the
constitution 10 interfere with or control the
domestic institutions OF the several states,
and that such states are the sole and proper
Judges of every thing arpcr,aining to their
own affairs, not prohibited by the conSti,u-
ton; that all efforts of the aboIi,ionists Or
others made 10 induce Congress 10 inter
fele with questions Of slavery, or take Incl.
pient steps in relation thereto, are calcula-
ted to lead to the most alarming and DANCE
rous consequences; and that all such efforts
have an inevi,abIn tendency to diminish
the happiness Of the people, and cndanger
the stability and pcrnanency of the union,
and ought not 10 he coun,enancrd tv any
friend Of our political institutions"
On frs, blush the doctrines SIT forth here
seems plausible: but let MS analyZc thls.re-
solution little, aud see if it is us fair and
sound as it processes to be. In the first
clause, it reads-'that Congress has no
power under the constitution TO interfere
with or control the domestic institutions of
the several States," &c. Is there anything
here, that denies TO Congress the right ofex-
ercising this power in the Icrritori.s be-
longing to the Government Certainly not.
What, then, has the South gained by this
declaration 2 Does it cover the ground as
the question now stands before the country?
Not at all. 1t is nothing but an old conces.
sion. made years ago by the more liberal
anti slavery party at tho North. before any
acCUiSition of Nav ,,,,, o,o.,
dreamed of. The thing granted viz that
Congress has no right TO control slavery in
the States is already res adjmdicnla
settled point, which the most rabid follow
er of Arthur Tappan, would scarce have
Abe hardihood to agitatc in the halls of Con
gress. No thanks. then. 10 the Baltimore
Convention for this liberal concession
But this resolution, with a seeming re-
gard 10 southern rights, goes Oil, il the ST.
cond clause, TO state" That all efforts ofthc
ts5olttaonists or others nante to ialucc Congress
to snterIcre 7oith questions of si0rery, or take
sncipicnt steps IN relation thereto, arc cnlcula-
1edko lead to the most alarming and DANGER
ous consequences" Sc. This language
would seem to convey most tender regard
dor southern tesliDgs, and sousl,e mintesest..:
On edrsory read ing Of this clnuse, you
MSaII 4 tlsin.it re lily cfags:rs CHI. wtiolaa
! Rtgar Bntsli6t Such A bei iieff 4Iii;
lid sslniotyIsSa q.
give The South tlle saslt tor;s!h h1Iit
nd It's nt InIHs undcr IN gcnuver, l.,.+--alo.
gy, to cheat the incautious and careless po-
liticians of the South: For the resolution
to express exactly what was meant, it must
read. l" that all efforts of abolitonists or 9th
ers made to induce Congress to interfere
with questions of slavery III the States,' &c.
We do not know bu, that fair interpreta-
tlon OF tie whole resolution demands this
inference hut ifany doubt at all remains,
S. is fully removed by the subsequent action
OF the Convention. For when 1t is propos-
edto extend the doctrine of non.interference
TO the Territories as we'll as to the States, a
tremendous hubbub Is produced, and the
great Convention is thrown into absolute
confusion. An amendment embracing this
extension OF the doctrine was offered in the
following words:
"Resolved: That the doctrine ofnon-in-
tcrfereaee whh the rights of property ofany
portion o: the people of this confederation,
be it in tho states or in the territories, by any
other than the parties interested in them, is
Abe true Republican doctrine recognized by
Ihis BODY.
We maintain, that this is the only ground
upon which the south can safely test this
nll'absorbing question And yet the Con-
>vention rejected This amendment by IL vote of
PIG TO 36-some of the southern states even
voting for it.
Now can there be after this any cavil or
doubt as to the meaning Of the Convention,
expressed in the aboveresolu,on ? can there
he sti onger proof Of their opposition to the
southern doctrine than the fact that they po.
sitiUely relused 10 incorporate it into the bo.
dy Of lheir political faith2 To doubt on this
matter, IS "to fight agains, ones own belief"
Here. ihen. lie the critical situation of the
south. The Convention openly refuse TO
admit that Congress has no power under
the constitution to interfere with or control
ashe rights Of property o: any portion of the
people OF this confederacy, be it in the states
fuse 10 say. that COnoYess has no riphf to