Democratic banner., 1849-07-02
EContinued from first page.)

that terminated in the acquisition of New
Mexico and Upper California, embracing
an area equal to about one-half of the entire
valley of the Mississippi. Ifto this we add
the portion Of Oregon acknowledged to be
ours by the recent treaty with England, our
whole territory on the Pacific and west OF
the Rocky Mountains will be found to be in
extent but little less than that vast valley.
The near prospect of so great an addition
rekindled the excitement between the North
and South in reference to slavery in its con-
hexion with the territories, which has be-
come, since those on the Pacific were ac-
qnired, more universal and intense than
ever.
The effects have been to widen the difference
between the two sections, ard to give a more de-
eernined and hostile character to their conflict
The North no longer respects the Missouri COM
promise line, although adopted by their almost
unanimous vote. Instead of compromise, they
now avow that their determination is to exclude
slavery from all the territories of the United
States acquired or to be acquired; and Of course
to prevent the ~citiEena of the southern States
from immigrating with their property in slaves
into any of them. Their object, they allege, is to
prevent the extension of slavery, and ours to ex-
SClu lS Guub U1&AluK lax ASoGC w o"N
us to be the naked question, shall slavery beck
tended or mott We do not deem it necessary,
looking to the object of this address, to examine
the question so fully discussed at the late session,
whether Congress has the right to exclude The
citizens Of the South from immigrating with their
property into territories belonging to the con-
federated States of the Union. What we pro-
pose in this connexion is, to make a few remarks
or what the North alleges, enormously, to be the
issue between US and them.
So far from maintaining the doctrine which the
issue implies, we hold that the federal govern
ment has no right to extend or restrict slavery,
no more than to 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 discour-
age the other. As the federal representative Of
each and all the States, it is bound to deal out,
within the sphere of its powers; equal and ex-
act justice and favor to all. To act otherwise,
TO undertake to discriminate between the domes-
TIC institutions of one and other, would be to act
in total subversion Of the end for which it was
established-to be the common protector and
guardian OF all. Entertaining these opinions, we
ask not, as the North alleges we do, for the ex-
tension Of slavery. That would make a discrim-
tnation in our favor as unjust and unconstitution-
al as the discrimination they ask against US in
their favor. 1t Is not for them nor for the feder-
al government to determine whether our domes-
tic institution is good or bad; or whether it should
be repressed or preserved. It belongs to us,
and US only, to decide such questions. What
then we do insist on, is, not to extend slavery,
but that we shall not be prohibited from immi-
grating, with our property, into the Territories
Of the United States, because we are slavehold-
ers; or, in other words, that we shall not on that
account be disfranchised of a privilege possessed
by all others, citizens and foreigners, without dis
examination as to character, profession, or color.
All. whether savage, barbarian, or civilized, may
freely enter and remain, we only being sxclu-
ded.
We rest our claim, not only onthe high grounds
above stated, but also on the solid foundation Of
right, justice, and equality. The territories i'm
l~nedlately in controversy-New Mexico and Cali
fornia-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
equality, entitled to participate fully in the bene
hts to be derived from their acquisition. But as
inpregnable as is this ground, there is another
not less so. Ours is q federal governments
government in which, not individuals, but States,
es distinct sovereign communities, are the con.
suVuentss 10 them as members of the federal
Union, the territories belong; and they are hence
declared 70 be territories belonging to the United
States. The States, then, are the Joint owners.
Now, it is conceded by all writers on the SUBJ
Ject, that in all such governments their members
are all equal--equal in rights and equal in digni-
y: They also concede that this equality con-
stltutes the basis Of such governments, and that
At cannot be destroyed without changing their ma
ture and character. To deprive, then, the south
ern States and their citizens o ftheir full share in
territories declared to belong to them, in common
with the other States. would be 10 deroeation of
the equality belonging to them as members of a
federal Onion, and sink them, from being equals,
Into . subordinate and dependent condition.
Such are the solid and impregnable grounds on
which we rest our demand to an equal participa-
tion in the territories.
But a. solid and impregnabls as they are in
the eyes Of justice and reason, they oppose a fee
bic resistance to q majority determined to engross
the whole. lat the last session, they passed a
bill to establish a Territorial g5rsrnment for Ore
gon,. containing q provision 70 exclude slavery,
unaccompsnied by compromise, or by making any
concession or equivalent whatever 10 the South.
Il was 90 passed, professedly to assert the un-