The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-22

of the South may go there with his slaves and
hold them as, safely in bondage as he can in the
state nom which he eniigrates. This is fully
established by the positions assumed by the propi-
so,'fs themselves, otherwise why pass the 8 pro-
viso - Why passthe exclusion, if weare already
excluded During the last Congress the Clayton
Compromise bill was under discussion lit proposed
to prohibit all legislation upon the subject of sla-
very, leaving it alone to the Constitution whether
1t did or should exist in the territories and the
whole Congress, North and South, had to vote
upon II. Under the provisions of this bill, if the
Constitution projected slavery in the territories,
then this bill protected it if il did not, then the
STAKEHOLDER was excluded, and that by the Consti-
tuition. Here the question was fairly presented
and we find every Northern anti.slayery man
Abolitioniss and Fiee-Soilers, voting against it,
and their leading men, such as Webster and Cor
win, assigning the reason, that if ii passed, it ad-
mitted slavery in the whole territory; while the
whole South, with the exception of only eight
members of this House and four in the Senate
voted for it-and the South thus voted because il
gave the slave interest all that was asked ,--its
rights under the Constitution, be they what they
might. This is the expression of the opinion Of
| the whole Congress except twelve members, that
the Constitution, uncontrolled by congressional
action, protects slavery in the territories. This
then, is our right under the Constitution, and
lnSiSt tdl ~ Is dDSru 10 CONTEND Inat the consul
| tuition gives Congress the power to take from us
rights which that instrument itself secures to us,
(the North, the Abolitionsts and Free-Soilers
| being the judges.) To give these facts their full
force, 1t must be borne in mind that it is asserted
by the anti-slavery men that slavery was excluded
from these territories by Mexican law previous to
its acquisition, and that they contend that these
Mexican laws are still in force until expressly re-
pealed; and further, that by the laws of nature,
slavery can yever exist in any part Of this terri
tory. The Clayton Compromise forbid the repeal
of these assumed Mexican laws, and scarcely
did not affect the laws of nature. Yet in the
Judgment ofthese anti-slavery men, to exclude the
South from its constitutional rights, they are un-
willing to rely upon these alleged Mexican laws
which they say are in force, nor are they satisfied
with their further position, that it is excluded by
the law OF nature, but they must go further, and
improve upon both, and, in the language of one
of their distinguished men, g reenact the laws OF
God" Thus it is, error leads to error, and absur-
dity to absurdity. e a4Ea
We hear it often repeated, that slavery cannot
be- introduced without positive law establishing
it. The South asks no such establishment. Now,
if these gentlemen believe their own words, what
folly it is for them to agitate the country upon
the subject, and to hazard the very existence of
this Government, to prohibit what they say can
not exist. If the South, desiring to secure more
perfect monopoly Of the production Of cotton and
sugar, were to ask Congress to prohibit the terri
tory of Minnesota from gro,ring these articles,
how absurd and ridiculous it would be, nature
having rendered that impossible which was sought
| to be prohibited, and what madness and folly
would it be to endanger the Union for such a sub
| limated absurdity; yet not more absurd than to
peril the prosperity of the Union to exclude
slavery where they say the laws of God and man
render its existence impossible. 1t is, therefore,
certain that they do not believe their own decla-
rations, or they are regardless of social order
and fatally bent upon mischief" Slavery exists
in fifteen of the States of this Union, and it is ex-
cluded from fifteen. In IT,, States where it exists
it was not established by law, but in those where
4 it does not exist it was and is excluded by posi-
i tive law. Ii is not even alleged that slavery
was ever established any where in the United
States by positive law, and it may exist every
where, unless prohibited. | am not discussing
the English law--not inquiring into the question
of British ethical physiology, that England,s soil
will cause the shackes of slavery to fall from the
Africans imbs,--though it is to be regretted that
| it has not the same effect upon the enslaved and
down-trodden millions of the subjects of that
| boosted land-but am discussing the American
principle. The fact that slavery does or may
exist in the United States, wherever it is not pro-
hibited, abundantly establishes my position. And
this leaves the States to manage their own inter
nal affairs, and to abolish slavery in their several
limits, MS may be deemed for the good of its citi-
zens The Constitution was careful, however, to
provide that, this right to abolish slavery by
| a State within its own limits, should not be exer-
cised to the prejudice of the citizens of other
States, but requires that fugitive slaves from other
States GO shall be delivered up" so sedulousIy
| were the rights of shareholders secured 1 am
| not to be understood as contending for power to
make slaves of free persons, for this power does
not exist in any part Of the Union, even in the
most ultra slave States; but if the individual be a
slave, then the principle is, that you may take
him and retain him in slavery any where that
slavery is not prohibited by positive law. aa4
Again: if citizen of Maryland, or any slave
holding State, sends his slave upon shpboard, his
property is protected wherever he may sail upon
the high seas, even in the most distant ocean. So
long as the flag Of the Union floats over him, his
rights in his slave are secure. How is this? All
ships carry the flag of the Government to which
they belong and our Supreme Court have again
and again held, that by construction, the ship thus
sailing under its proper flag, however distant, is
still part of the domain of the country whose
flag she bears, and that slaves, upon this prnci-
pie, though upon the faroff sea- are still slaves,
and the property of their master. A ship from
Maryland or Louisiana bears not the flag of It's
State, for no State has flag, but it is the flag Of
the Union that gives protection. If, then, slave
upon vessel thousands of miles from the United
States is still held in slavery because he is cor
structvely upon the domain of the United States
how much more certainly will he be so held
when he is really and truly upon the soil of the
Union?
Now, sir, this is our right, which the North
threatens to take from us, in relation to the new
ly7acquired territory. And why this threat 1t
forms part Of great scheme to abolish slavery
throughout the Union. Abolition first attracted
attention about fifteen years ago; it then arose in
the east, a cloud "like mans hand" but it has
increased until the heavens are black with clouds,
which threaten to pour down upon us, not the re-
freshing and fertiizing rain of the prophets, but
storm of destruction, more like that which fell
upon the cities of the plain. What is this great
scheme fs hr 8
Mr.. CLAY, on the It'll of February, 1899, in the
Senate Of the United States, speaking Of the vari-
cites of Aboltionsts, said:
"And the third class are the real ultra Adolf
lists, who resolved to persevere in the pursuit
iof their object at all hazards and without regard
to any consequences however calamitous they
may be. With this class, the immedi.
ate abolition of slavery in the District of Column
bia, *s the prohibition Of the removal OF
slaves from State to State, and the refusal to adj
nit any new State comprising within its limits
the institution Of domestic slavery, are but so
many means conducting to the accomplishment of