The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-14

then REQUIRED on the amendment, and 1t was
also rejected-yeas 20, nays 81. Neither propo-
sition got Northern vote. Would this have
been the case, If the desire had been to secure
to the South that equality which you consider
| is recognized in the measures adopted?
On another occasion, when the proposition was
to fix the southern boundary of Utah at the
37th degree OF north latitude, offered an amend
ment substituting the parallel Of 30 deg 30 min
1t was opposed in debate as containing an impli-
cation with regard to slavery, and was lost-yeas
| 20, nays 27-only two Northern senator's (Dick-
inson and Douglass) voting for 1t. The second
proposition Of your resolution pronounces dis-
union as the only alternative presented by the de-
mand of the Nashville Convention. Why so?
Is il true that the men of the North held the Union
40 lightly that they would rather dissolve II than
abide by a compromise which In former years
they forced upon the South-woud rather destroy
it than permit the South 10 enjoy in a part Of the
territory those rights which, costitutionaly, they
have in the wholei II so, neither their justice,
patriotism or fraternity have much claim to our
consideration. Or is it that those who claim
equality of right would not submit to be confined
to part--to be, in any degree, shorn by the
Federal Government, Of the interests 1t was formed
to protects If this be the source from which dis
union is expected to flow, our danger is imminent
indeed, when we are denied recognition or protec-
ton in the whole.
Will be answered, that we can appeal to the
courts' lfso, freely, we could have appealed, to
the courts against the a" Wmot Proviso." The
security, and protection, and equality asserted
by you could not, l suppose, have meant the right
to appeal to the Supreme Court against hostile
discrimination.
That the North has not abandoned the claim of
power TO legislate in relation to slavery In the
territories, is shown by the report which accom-
panied the bills when jointly brought in oy the
| Committee OF Thirteen; by the declarations OF
prominent members Of both Houses OF Con-
| gress, and by the action Of some Northern mem
bers after the bills had finally passed: The argu-
ment which prevailed against the Wilmot Proviso
was that it was unnecessary; that slavery was ex-
cluded by the law of nature and the law Of Mexico
If, then, il should be found that the law of nature
inv es rather than excludes save labor, and u II
should be decided that the law or Mexico with
cred beneath the shadow OF our Constitution,
those who, under the above suppositl"n, opposed
the prohibition of slavery, would not merely be
relieved from any obligation to adhere to their po-
sition, but IT, like Mr.. Clay, opposed to " the ex-
tension Of slavery into those new territories, either
by the authority Of Congress or by individual en-
terprize," would be called on by their previous
declarations to unite in obstructng the entrance of
slavery into the territories.
1t is not by change of the phraseology or
avoidance Of the issue that the Wimot Proviso is
to be put to rest; it is the index OF an energetic
spirit, wide spread sentiment, which wars, as 1t
| has warred for years, against our slave property,
and which is now united to sectional party,
struggling for political dominion over us. Such
unwaverng purpose and seepless energy does not
seek repose when flushed by recent triumph, and
| cheered by the near prospect Of final success.
When the Wmot Proviso shall be beaten by
| Northern members, who avow, as their reason,
that the South possesses equal rights in the terri
tories, and should be protected in their enjoy
ment, then will believe that the Wilmot Proviso
is put to rest, and will be prepared to rejoice with
you in the contamination of that desirable event.
That which has been done is by no means the
equivalent Of this, and but discharge the duty of
| your sentinel on the outpost, when state my
belief that the measures enacted in relation to the
territories were expected and designed by the ma
iority to exclude slaves from the territories, and
restrict them to the States in which they are now
| held.
! In your fifth resolution you say, in effect, that
part Of Texas, by the terms of anne xation, was
placed within the reach Of prohibitory enactment
by Congress, in relation to slavery, and that the
power has been abandoned. suppose the refer
ence was to the third guarantee of the second
section of the Joint resolution for anneXing Texas
to the United States, in which it was provided
that new States, not exceeding four in number, in
addition to the State of Texas, might, by the
consent of said State, and under other conditions
enumerated, be admitted into the Union.
1t was further provided, that such States
were formed out Of territory lying south Of the
parallel Of $3.50 of north latitude, commonly
known as the Missouri Compromise line, should
very, as the people Of each State asking admission
might desire. -''And in such State or States us
shall be formed out of said territory eth of said
Missouri Compromise line, slavery, or involunta-
ny servitude, Except for crime,) shall be prohb-
tied"
cannot find in this a grant of power to the
Congress to make prohibitory enactment against
slavery in any part Of the territory of Texas The
condition begun only at the point at which it
ceased to be part of Texas it applied to new
q. ~ 80 -
should remain permanently part Of that State,
then the provision would remain dead letter
The day must be very remote, lift ever should
rive, when that part Of Texas which is north Of
the Missouri Compromise line will have the re-
quisite population to form State, which was the
condition which it was TO be separated. As
part of the State Of Texas it was secure from the
assault Of abotionism, at least until it assert,
what has been heretofore denied, the intent to in
terfere with slavery within the States where it
lists. What :hen have they abandoned, what have
we gained, or rather what have we not lost' If
Texas accept the proposition, how will the true
boundary Of Texas, as annexed, ever be estab-
lished, and II there be rights in the territory Sold
as having been part Of Texas, who will determine,
exactly, what that territory was You will re-
membtr that the boundary claimed, the Rio
Grande, was disputed and that neither by or be-
fore the proposition to purchase the claim of Tex
as to the country west and north of her newly de-
fined boundary, was the Rio Grand admitted to
!, be the true limit Of that State
agree With YOU in your commentator of the
bill for the recovery fug;::e slaves vet we had
reason to fear that those who disregarded plain
. provision of the Constitution, who had nulliied
it, as we'll as the act Of 1893 intended to enforce
it, would render the act of 1850 equally void
h, But whatever be the merit of that law, by exam-
t nation Of the proceedings Of Congress you will
find that it was not originally framed, subse-
quently amended to its present form, or mainly
advocated by those to whom you return thanks.
The measure known as the bill to abolish the
slave trade in the District Of Columbia, which is
the grossest usurpation of power and most paIpa-
BILE violation of constitutional right is not alluded
to by youi am therefore permitted to hope you
do not approve of the power asserted by Congress
in that bill to emancipate slave because his
owner brings him into the District Of Columbia to
keep him there until interest or convenience shall
induce him to remove his slave elsewhere for SALE
A right not denied to the owners Of other prop
erty, and penalty in violation Of the prohibition
against taking private property except for public
use, and by making due compensation therefor.
} have, at greater length than was originally in
tended, sought to meet the issue presented to me,