The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-25

people to submit to what they consider a wrong or
a degradation imposed on them, come from what
pose that they will do III and in my opinion, it
Is the wrong spirit in whichtto approach the adj
Justment Of this question. = regretted, therefore,
to hear my friend from New Jersey Mr. Mler]
talk about his State standing until the last gun was
fired for the preservation of this Union
You cannot preserve this Union by the firing of
guns. The first gun fired against any State, IN
her capacity such--you will pardon my ex-
pressing the opinion--will be the death-knell of
this Union. Ii was not so formed. 1t was never
based upon the fears of the people. The Consti-
tuition, which is the bond of Union, is something
more than a mere piece of parchment; it is the
embodiment of living, vital principles it was in
tended to exist MS SUCH and it must exist as SUCH
protecting the interests Of all. Whenever it ceases
to do so, from that day forth does that glorious
Union virtually cease to exist l therefore beg
gentlemen not to act hastily or imprudenlly in
this matter. know that strong positions have
been assumed by the legislatures Of different
States, on opposite sides Of this question. hope
that we shall yet find common ground upon which
we can all meet here. The resolutions of the Sen
ator from Kentucky are Objectionable to me, and
| cannot vote for Them because | do not believe
that il they passed, they will be acceptable to
the South But was glad to see the spirit IN.
which they were offered, and to hear the declara-
ton Of the Senator, that he was not particularly
attached to them; that he desired discussion on
the subject, so that the rights of all might be in
vestigated, and that he cared not what amend
ments might be made to them. The motives he
had in view in Offering those resolutions, COM
mend highly, and hope they will animate the
bosom OF every senator who shall vote upon this
question. His great object seemed to me to be
to discard sectional issues and strife, and to
lnr,pu hon 81 I'm a. het tor pf hp
Union, when fiaternal feeling existed all over the
land
now proceed to the consideration Of the reso-
luton to which have referred
cd. Resoiped, That as slavery does not exist by
law, and is not likely to be introduced into any
Of the territory acquired by the United States from
the Republic Of Mexico, il is nexpedient for Con-
gress to provide by law either for its introduction
into exclusion from any part of the said territory;
and that appropriate territorial governments ought
to be established by Congress in all the said terri
tory, not assigned as the boundaries of the pro-
posed State of California, without the adoption
of any restriction or condition OH the subject
of slavery"
= The Senator was pleased to say that this reso-
luton contained two great truths-one of law and
one of fact. Well, sir, the resolution in its pre-
sent shape decides the question oflaw, that slavery
does not exist in the territories in other words
that no one, owning slaves, can carry his property
and not compromising the question. 1t is "a direct
decision upon the whole subject-mater of the very
point in controversy, from the beginning. From
the start this has been the issue that has divided
us; 1t is the question upon which we have split,
from the commencement of this discussion IL
has always been urged by the people of the South
that, as soon this territory was acquired, they
had the right, in common with their fellow-citi-
zens of the North, to go there with theirproperty,
even slaves, and that they are protected in that
right by the Constitution of the u. S., nasmuch
as the territory was the common property Of the
Union. Ht
Sir, the first argument with which we were met
was, that the law ofMeXico had abolished slavery
in those territories; that such a law remained in
force when we acquired the territories; and that,
therefore, slavery was excluded from their limits
after the acquisition. Now, will not take up
the time of the Senate, in reading those laws but
will refer to them briefly. The first is a decree
of a dictator in Mexico, in the year 1929. That
decree is now asked to be enforced here as law,
and we asked, by the terms of this resolution,
to declare that it is now, Notwithstanding the dis
avowal of the authority by which it was passed by
Mexico, the law ofthe land. Sir, we oughtto pause
in this matter, and recolect that there have been
great many DEGREES made by Mexican dictators.
But this decree is in direct violation Of several ar
ticles of the Mexican constitution, then in exist
ence--the constitution of 1924; for instance, the
article declaring that " the Mexican nation adopts
for its form of government, a popular Represen-
tative, and Federal Republic" There are other
matters in selation to this point, by reading which
will not tJigue the Senate, going on to adopt the
very same principle, with regard to the right of
/, the several States to manage their own internal
institutions and affairs, is secured in the Con-
| sitution of the United States. Now, sir, who
will say, that if here to-day to invest the
President of the United States with supreme po-
litical power, and he should undertake to issue a
decree, abolishing slavery throughout the Union;
it would have the force and effect of law, Yet,
such was the operation in Mexico; for her consti-
tuition is as stringent, and as clear and direct on
this subject, as is. But, say gentleman, this
law was reaffirmed by the Mexican Congress, in
1887 a.l
Well, sir, as it was law directly at variance
the consttution--the fundamental Jaw of the
and-if they had enacted it thousand times
over, having its origin in violation of the Con-
stitution, it was law utterly null and void. But
we are told that a Constitution, which was read
by the Senator from Missouri, (Mr. BENroN,)
which was adopted by Mexico in the year 1913,
absolutely abolished slavery. This may be the
case; but take up the history of the Mexican
Republic, and you will find revolution after revo-
luton occurring, and constitution after constitu-
ton adopted-so that it is with extreme difficulty,
amid all this confusion, that one, at this day, can
ascertain what the Mexican laws really are. One
day plan of government is established, by some
successful military leader, only to be overthrown
on the next, and new system substituted The
constitution Of 1894 has never been abolished by
the people themselves, but only overthrown by
the military leaders; aud whenever they have
been put down, the government has always fallen
back on that constitution, and gone on under it.
But suppose this law really did exist, and that,
on the very day these territories were coded to the
United States it in full force and effect; does
it prove anything in favor Of the proposition
tended for' Garry it out and what does it show J
The argument is, that this constitution Of l843
was in existenne, and is now in existence, in
California, and the rest ofthe territories. fla part
Of it be in existence there, by parity of reasoning,
all ofthat constitution is in force in those terrtories
and how are we to get clear of it there' Only
by the means pointed out in the Constitution it
self-by an alteration of it; and we Of the slave
holding States are asked to agree to this, and to
forsake the ground upon which we stand, and
which we think invulnerabe. In negotiating the
very treaty by which we acquired this territory,
the Mexicans asked that the laws in regard to the
exclusion of slavery in the territories, should re-
main in force, and we refuse to insert such a con-
dtion.
The Supreme Court of the United States, quoted
so often in regard to its decisions on these points