The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1850-03-26

ton of the gentlcman's speech, which was par
ticularly directed to myself, growing out CT al
question which propounded tohinin the course
ofhis remarks: He had denied that slavery en-
isted in Mexico, and contended that her laws III
reference to slavery were not and could not be
affected BY the conquest of the United States
and the treaty of cesson put this interoga:
tory to him: Suppose a confederacy consisting
exclusively of shareholders had made the con-
quest, and had become owners of the territory
acquired by treaty and war, would they be pro-
hibited from taking their slaves with them when
they took possession of their acquisition! AND
the gentleman contended that the conquerors
might have their land; but that, by the laws OF
the conquered, these slaves could no longer De
bound to labor for their masters.
have always thought such proposition a
strange one. Take this case; two mon reside
on neighboring islands. One owns slaves aGo
the other does not and one sells out to the 9TH
er; can he be prohibited from taking his slaves
to the purchased premises, because slavery had
been prohibited there before the Purchase!-
Take case that may well be put: Suppose
Cuba to be an independent State, and she were
to make war upon Hayti, and were to bring the
inhabitants to an unconditional surrender OF
that island: would the people of Cuba be pro-
hibited from carrying tl.er slaves to the con,
auered territory. by virtue of any law that had
existed there The conqueror might, for con-
venience, recognise as many OF the laws as
would be subservient and proper for the enjoy
ment of his conquest. But if he had made the
conquest expressly with view of removing his
slaves for his profit, it would indeed be strange
if he could not carry his property with him. l
think the proposition to be this: the conquerer
his right to 90 u;,on his territorial conquests
himself, with all hi, property of whatever kind;
but, until they are altered, he may have to sub.
ject such property to the laws of the conquered
count y f,r protection and succession, &C.
That is his option, founded on convenience aud
necessity. The colquerer, and not the con-
quercd, is to be the judge of what shall be re-
garded property in tie transfer OF d1minion.-
Suppose nearer case; and that is, that Texas,
slave State, had conquered Mexico or Califor-
MIA ; would it have been competent for Mexico
or California to have said to the victors, after
the treaty, you shall only bring such property
with you as we have chosen to regard as prop.
ertya We do not regard slaves as property,
and therefore you cannot bring them among as.
Thus enlarge the proposition: Suppose the Uni
ted States, while they were all slaveholding
States, had made the conquest of Mexico or
California, and that all the parties had been
sIaveholders; what effect would the laws Of
Mexico have had to control their rights and au-
thority of ownership! They did not cease the
less to be owners because they had the power
of conquerors fone with arms to enforce his
rights were to be told by those whom he had
Just whipped that they could stop him By lac
from coming among them, it would give law
potency approaching incompreAcnsille sublimi.
ty. Can it make any difference that conquest
is effected by the joint cooperation of slave
holders and nor. shareholders One has slaves
to work, and the other has money to hire labo !;
but they are equal partners, if they engaged in
enterprise and conquest as equals. And who
will dare to say that, under the flag of the Union,
our States and troops did not 60 into the Mey-
ican war as equals9 They were equals in the
war, and they are equals as partn ,rs to share its
fruits. The conquered territory is the common
domain of all the partners, and is und r the
common guarantees of the flag AMI constitution
Of the United States, for the benefit OF all.
What is a ship sailing on the high seas, under
the flag of the United States! Is it not to be
regarded as being part of the territory of the
country to which it belonged, and to carry with
it the guarantees of property on board of it, Of
whatever kind it might be, as we'll slaves as any
other species Of property! Such was the dec.
trine held by Mr. Webster when, as an impa7-
tia trustee, he was acting as asSecretary of State,
for all the interests of his constituents alike, and
in that character would trust him now. In
the case of the Creole, he distinctly maintained
the opinion that under the guarantees of the OOH
stitution of the United States slaves were to b.
regarded as Legitimate property Oh board of an
American vessel, and that, too, OH the ground
that the bottom Of the vessel took its character
from the jurisdiction ofthe country to which it
belonged.
If a STAKEHOLDER were to buy n plantation ola
non.slaveholder, he would be apt to think that
he had right to cultivate it as he pleased; and
if three shareholders and three on.>laycholders
were to buy a domain from -slaveholdins
owner, could it be possible that the non-slavc.
holders could claim all the dominion over the
government of the purchased promises! Iftl,cy
were in minority, they would not attempt it
If equal, they would forbcar; and it is only in
the case of an arbitrary majority that they would
attempt to control the other partners. 1t is not
justice, but arbitrary power, thatmakes the law