The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-22
ID lily.
Washington, Monday, July %, 1850.

words to refer to the manner in which they are
used in other parts of the Constitution. By
that instrument, Congress has power to "reoa.
late commerce among the several States" Yet
1t is not pretended that it may exclude or de-
stroy. Again, it gives Congress power to
make rules for the government and regulation
of the land and naval forces" Yet, by the
trainers of that instrument, it was deemed ne
cessary to go further. and they did so, and d.
rected IN the Constitution that Congress shall
have power to raise and support armies g to
provide and maintain a navy"
But, sir, in the hour to which / am limited. /
have not time to follow this argument further.
The power claimed is nowhere expressly grant
ed in the Constitution, and there is not the
slightest ground to infer that it was intended by
its trainers. There is another class of individuals
who, unable to point out any one or more clauses
| OF the Constitution that gives the power Of ex-
cluslon, say that it results from the whole in
strument, Now, sir, let it be remembered that
The States that formed the Constitution were
equal, and that one great object in view was the
maintenance of this equality. This is admitted
to be one Of the leading objects of the Consti-
tuition With this fact admitted, that the Con
stltuton was formed to preserve this equality,
and that nevertheless power results from this
instrument to exclude a part, and thereby to
render them nnequal is, to say the least, an alb
surdlty. Do equals added to equals give une-
quals "Do men gather grapes Of thorns or figs
of thistles2" The absurdity has but to be stated
to become at once manifest. Such false reason
ing is in no case excusable, bnt least of all to
pervert the Constitution of the country, and to
Justify the usurpation of the rights of great
portion of our good citizens
There are Others who make the claim mainly
upon the ground of precedent, and they refer to
the ordinance of 1857, excluding slavery from
the northwestern territory; but they seem to
forget that this ordinance was made before the
adoption Of the Constitution, and was, in the
language OF that instrument, an engagement
entered into before the adoption of the Consti-
tuition, and therefore declared valid" and upon
this ground it was observed, as pre-existing, and
not as created under or by authority of the Con
stitution. This destroys the whole force of the
pretended presidents in relation to the terrific
ries subsequently formed north and west of the
Ohio river, and all precedents for the first thirty
years Of this Government
And here | may remark, that the object in
tended to be effected by the ordinance Of 1887,
was not to exclude the slaves then in the United
States, but to check their Importation. Mr..
Madison, in his letter to Mr.. Monroe of the 10th
| February, 1920, speaking of the ordinance of
1887, and after remarking upon the object of the
restrictionists, that it is not the welfare of the
slaves, or the check to their increase that is the
| object they have in view, says:
"The real object is, to form new state of par
ties, founded upon local instead of political dis
tnctions, thereby dividing the republicans of the
| North from those of the South, and making the
former instrumental in giving the opponents of
both an assendency over the whole
. have observed yet hi none of the views
taken of the ordinance Of 1887 interdicting slave
ry northwest of the river Ohio, an illusion to the
circumstances, that when it passed, the Congress
had no authority to prohibit the importation OF
slaves from abroad - Had such
| an authority existed, scan it be doubted that il
would have been exerted, and that regulation
having merely the effect Of preventing the interior
disposition Of slaves actually in the United States
and creating distinction among the States in the
degree OF their sovereignty, would not have been
adopted or perhaps thought Off"
Here, sir, we have the testimony of Mr.. Mad-
son, that this ordinance was not intended to affect
slavery as IT then existed, but was adopted as a
means of checking the foreign slave trade-a trade
which has been long since abolished under our
Constitution.
We are next referred to the g Missouri Com
promise . as being precedent clearly establishing
consideration, the North claimed the power to ex-
clude slavery from every portion Of the territory,
the South WIDELY denied it, and the act passed al
lowing 1t IN part and excluding it from part, and it
was called the Missouri Compromise and from
that day to this, here and every where, when re-
ferred TO 1t is called the" compromise" A COM
promise is not decision--its very name takes
from 1t all force as precedent and further it
passed by the votes of the North against the ma
jority of the Southern members Of Congress /; yet
# gentlemen will insist that it is precedent what
does 1t avail? The North claimed the power to
abolish slavery in the then Territory of Missouri
or exclude 1t from becoming State of this Union
1.-THE South denied the power, and insisted that
Missouri should be admitted with slaves the
North receded, and Missouri was received with
slaves; and Missouri is indebted to the South for
her final admission into the Union as State upon
terms Of equality with the other States. This is
so far precedent against this power But in the
same act Congress excludes slavery from all other
of the Louisiana territory north Of 36o 30. This
may be considered as so far a precedent for the
power; yet it is but the intended equivalent for
the concession against the power in the admission
OF Missouri. This act being at it's enactment a
compromise, and all subsequent legislation regard
ing 1t compromise, like the original it looses all
force as precedent. This true as to Iowa and to
Arkansas, to Oregon and Minnesota. / then main
tain that there is no clear we-established prece-
dent to support the power of exclusion that is
claimed. But there may be some who differ with
me in opinion to these l would say word: sup
pose you believe that there are some one or more
precedehts-of what force are they' You know
that not one of them met the approbotion of the
people of the whole Union, nor has any one re-
ceived cordial acquiescence, but they have been
passed by Northern majorities and submitted to
(not acquisced in) by the South from attachment
TO the Union. Sir, if these be precedents, (Which
deny) they avail nothing against the South
And, sir, may well ask, OF what avail all prece-
dents to establish power, where we have writ
ten Constitutions How many times must Con-
gress usurp power by sectional majorites, to ex-
Guide and Cypress minority before the power be-
comes legaIized, and made part of the Constitu-
ton ?Can doing wrong, make it rightto repeat il
If so, then Congress may 60 on adding usurpa-
ton to usurpation, until it may exercise any power
that majority may desire, or until the people are
driven TO resistance. The one is tyranny, the
other revolution and these alike to be avoided
am advocating no new doctrine--it is that in
which have been brought up. When the Wing
party formerly advocated a United States bank,
and the Democratic party opposed it, as being not
authorized by the Constitution, the friends of that
mi heinz mn to cb