Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1849-02-02

grating with their property into territories be-
! longing 10 the eonfederated States of the I'm
ion What We propose in this connection is,
| And yet the abolitionist ofthe North, open
llv avowing their intention, and resorting to
| TO make few remarks on what the North al
Ieges, enormously, to be the issue between US
and them.
So far from maintaining the doctrine which
the issue implies, we hold that the federal go
yernment has no right to extend or restrict
slavery, no more than 10 establish or abolish
/ it: nor has it any right whatever to distinguish
] between the domestic institutions OF one State
or section and another, in order to favor the
one. and discourage the other. Asthe federal
representatives of each and all the States. it is
hound TO deal out, within the sphere of lis
mowers. equal and exact justice and favor to
ali To act otherwise. to undertake 10 dis
criminate between the domestic institutions of
one and another, would be to act in total SUBJ
version of the end for which Il was establish
ed-to be the common protector and guardian
of all. Entertaining these opinions, we ask
not as the North alleges we do, for the extern
sion Of slavery. That would make a discrim-
ination in our favor as unjust and unconstitu.
tionaI as the discrimination they ask against
us in their favor Il is not for them nor for
the federal government to determine whether
our domestic institution is good or bad; or
whether it should he depressed or preserved.
It belongs to us, and us only, to decide such
questions. What then we do insist on, is not
10 extend slavery, but that we shall not be
prohibited from immigratng with our proper
ty into the Territories of the United States, be.
cause we are Shareholders; or, in other words,
that we shall not on that account be disfran-
chised of a privilege possessed by all others,
citizens and foreigners, without discrimination
as TO character, profession, or color. All,
whether savage, barbarian. or civilized, may
freely enter and remain, we only being exclu-
ed. :.{e'
we rest our claim, not only on the high
grounds above stated, but also on the solit
foundation of right, justice, and equality
The territories Immediately IN controversy
, New Mexico and California-were acquired
by the common sacrifice and efforts of all the
States, towards which the South contributed
far more than her full share of men, to say
nothing of money, and is, of course on every
principle of right, justice, fairness. and equal
ity, entitled to participate fully in the benefits
to be derived from their acquisition. But as
f impregnable as is the ground, there is another
not less so. Ours is federal governmental
government in which, not individuals, but
States, as distinct sovereign communities, are
the constituents. To them, as members of the
t federal Union, the territories belong; and they
are hence declared TO be territories belongn g
to the United States The States, then, are
the joint owners. Now, it is conceded by all
/ writers on the subject, that in all such govern
t ments their members are all equal--equal in
rights and equal in dignity. They also con-
cede that this equality constitutes the-basis Of
such government, and that it cannot be des-
2 troyed without changing their nature and cha
racter. To their full share in territories de-
: clared to belong to them, in common with the
/ other States, would be in derogation of the
equality belonging to them as members of a
/ federal Union. and sink them, from being
equals, into a subordinate and dependent con.
: dition. Such are the solid and impregnabIe
t grounds on which we rest our demand TO an
equal participation in the territories.
t But as solid and impregnable as they are in
the eyes of justice and reason, they oppose a
t feeble resistance to majority determined to
e engross the whole. At the last session of
| Congress, bill was passed establishing ter
rtorial government for Oregon, excluding
+ slavery therefrom. The President gave his
5 sanction to the bill, and sent q special mes
t sage to Congress assigning his reasons for do
p, ing so. These reasons pre- supposed that the
Missouri compromise was to be, and would
be, extended west of the Rocky mountains to
the Pacific ocean. And the President intimat-
e ed his intention in his message to veto any
e future bill that should restrict slavery south
: of the line of that compromise Assuming ii
t 10 have been the purpose and intention of the
North to extend the Missouri compromise line
as above indicated the passage of the Oregon
bill could only be regarded as evincing the &C
quiescence of the South in that line But the
e developments Of the present session of Con-
= gress have made it manifest to all that no such
D purpose of intention now exists with the North
a to any considerable extent. Of the truth oil
t this, we have ample evidence in what has &C.
S Cured already in the House of Representa-
: tives, where the popular feelings are soonest
b and most intensely felt.
S Although Congress has been in session bu
t little more than one month, greater number
: of measures of an aggressive character have
: been introduced, and they are more dangerous
f than have been for years before. And what
clearly discloses whence they take their ori
e gin, is the tact that they all relate TO the terri
torial aspect OF the subject of slavery, or some
T other of a nature and character intimately con.
e nected with it,
a The first of this series of aggression is res
: olution introduced by a member from Massa
chusetts, the object of which is to repeal al
It acts or parts of acts which recognise the exis
@ tence of slavery, or authorize the selling anG
: dsposing of slaves in this District. On ques
it ton of leave to bring in bill, the votes STOOD
+ 50 for and 81 against leave. The next was
= resolution offered by member from Ohio, in
= structing the committee on territories to repor
s forthwith bills for excluding slavery from Cal
# ifornia and New Mexico.t 1t passed by {
= vote of 1O7 to 80. That was followed by
: bill introduced by another member from Ohio
to take the votes of the inhabitants of this Dis
= trict on the question whether slavery within
J. its limits should be abolished.
The bill provided, according to the admis
sion of the mover, that free negroes and slaves
n should vote. On the question to lay the bill
q on the table, the votes stood-for, LOG; against
d 70. To this succeeded the resolution of ;
4 member from New York, in the following
words:
|. Whereas the traffic now presented in THU
5 metropolis of the republic in human beings
J. as chattles, is contrary 10 natural justice ant
n the fundamental principles of our political sys
: tenn, and is VIGOROUSLY reproach TO our coun
= try, throughout Christendom. and serious
|. hindrance to the progress of republican liber
d ty among the nations OF the earth. There
Z fore
r. IL