The Port Gibson herald, and correspondent., 1850-03-15
From The Nafchez Couri(
The Question at Issue.

The Question at Issue.
There is no ordinary degree Of excitement in
the South, at the present time, on the all-absorb
ing question Of slavery-whie in the North, a
better feeling seems to prevail, than heretofore.
Such is the love Of the Union, that they will not
put its perpetuty 10 jeopardy, by any PEI tinacIous
adherefce to opinions on abstract rights Many
perry MANY people of the free States-look upon
slavery as a political evil, and therefore, wish to
stay its spread. A very large portion Of them,
think the constitution gave 10 Congress the pow
er to interdict IFS admission into neW territories.
We ofthe South think otherwise, and on all sub
iects where there is an honest difference OF opin-
ions. the course Of erpediency, becomes proper
and necessary, to prevent collision. My own
opinion. until recently coincided with that OF the
North. thought the power ITO make all need:
fLrequations for the territories. had been clear
IL granted to Congress by the constitution; and
that it belonged to Congress alone to determine
what regulations should be deemed ''aeedful;'
subject, hence, TO the decision Of the Supreme
Court of the United States; the only power in the
government competent to settle qestions arising
out of the construction ofthe constitution. More
mature reflection has led me 10 doubt whether
the trainers Of the constitution ever intended to
give 10 Congress any other power over the sub
ect of slavery, than that granted in express terms
to wit to regulate and interdict after certain
period, "the Importation Of slaves from abroad"
1t is nevertheless true. the ordinance Of ct: for
bidding slavery in the Northwestern territory
was ratified BY the very first Congress after the
adoption of the constitution. This Congress was
composed of many OF the trainers OF the cnnstitu-
lion: and thev, if any body, ought TO have known
4La md hat
Arain: in 1904, alter the purchase Of Louisiana,
the right of Congress TO regulate and leglsiate on
the subject Of slavery in the territories, was ac
quiesced in Here, then are two precedents in
in support of claim to this right; and when the
opinions of the present day, are backed BY such
precedenfS, they are entitled to some respect.
Sull however, am inclined TO think that the
trainers OF the constitution neyerdesigned to give
to Congress the right to establish isiavery, and
! therefore could not have intended to grant the
| right to interdict its establishment They must
have intended to have left this whole subject 10
the people If this be so Congress has no more
power 10 interdict slavery in the territories than
! it has 10 establish il there. Nor has Congress the
right to refuse the people Of the territories the
right Of introducing forbidding the Introduction
of slavery. 1t is question lett for the decision
/
beer the doctrine contended for BY the South. 1t
was the true southern doctrine, few months ago.
and whatever NAV have been the opposition to it,
from the free States it seems nov to be conceded
by a majority. and hence the "Wilmot Proviso, =
may be considered dead letter.
But new attitude has been assumed by the
South. We now contend that the present pee
tble of California have no right 70 decide on the
/ qneation of slavery. This right is denied to
them because ofthe "mixed character of the pop
ulaton., This is, | think, assuming what con-
not be proved 1t is generally believed, BY calm
and consderate men, that large majority OF the
present population Of California, are intelligent
and enlightened, and composed, mainly, of natirt
born citizens Of The United States. Would it no
then be preposferous to deny to them the fitness
or capacity for framing government for them
selves? Iftbe capacity to read and write-th,
intelligence TO G1tnprehend their own best tempo
raj interests, and the enterprise TO achieve inde
pendence in circumstances, be tests of capacity
for self government tiien are the people OF Cali
fornia as well qualified to frame constitution
for themselves, AS are the people OF Mississippi
or of any other southern State.
But, iii is contemded that the South has not had
but is vet to have, the Opportunity OF settling II
tia: country; and until this opportunity is grant
ed, California must be denied admission into th
Union! How long wiHbe asked to test this op
portunty7 Will three, FIVE, or ten years, suffice
Suppose we say five years. Does any man. q
sane mind, suppose that. in five years, there wi
be preponderance Of shareholders in California
1 And il there be no hope 5of such preponderanc
in the course of tme-where the advantage, o
7 proprety, ofdelaying her admission? Why is il
that we have not now preponderance OF slave
holders there?-There was nothing to deter Il
from going. Why did we not 60? Was it nc
because we believed the country unsuitable to
, the profitable employment of slave labor? True
: subsequent events, may have proved this to hav
been an error. But who is TO blame .or the error
Not the people OF the free States. But it may b
!. contended that an opportunity should be give
us to correct our error! Admit that it is gram
ed. What rational hope can be entertained {
success? None whatever. The people fror
: the free States will continue to pour into N
country in greater numbers henceiorth, than ca
: the ;people from the South Then. ask agar
what is to be gained by delay9 With the preser
population, vastly preponderatingin ayor OF prc
hibting SLAVERY and The prospects OF an annu'
increase henceforth; equal at least to that troI
the slave States, what ground is there for hope
that in any definite time-nay, in all time 10 CON
there can be majority OF the people in fave
of establishing in their constitution, the adnisso
ofsiavery? lsit not madness, then, to oppose ht
admission now, when by doing so we hazard th
suspicion that we wish to make capital outfof i
D That wsswish to keep up agitation for some u
n lerior ob5iecl Are we willing to subjectourselvt
: to the suspicion of design, or desire. to brea
y up the Uuion? Ihope not. We canhave NJ
e thing to hope for, from delay, in.the admssio
9 ofCalfornia; and her admission or rejection won
S seem now to be the main difficulty inithe sett
meDt Of this momentous question. IL is ver
It well known thatth habits, thoughts an0 feeling
a OF early settlers oil new country give perm'
v nent tona and cast to society, both social and p
r Iitical We cannot hope to change FIRST impre'
d Esions. They are now deep rooted against tt
Q admission Of slavery They will grow strongt
j. lhy opposition. And besides, we have no hoE
o n. ~, >.a ~ cav - =