The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-03-08
No. o27.

ed in the Constitution to limit restrain discoura ge,
or otherwise impair property in slaves. But they
seek to effect these objects by implication. under
the claim Of power to govern the Territories belong
ing to the United States. This power to govern
the Territories is itself but doubtful implication.
II ia not founded upon express grant. That clause
Of the Constitution which authorizes Congress I" to
dispose OF and make all needful rules and regu-
lationo respecting the territory other property
belonging to the United States" has been some
times relied upon to warrant Legislation over the
Territories. But its terms confne II SO clearly to
territory land, property, that the pretension
is now generally abandoned untenable, the ad-
vocates of the power most usually claim il result
ing from the power to acquire territory by treaty
IL being unimportant to my argument from
whence the power TO legisate over the Territories
is derived, / shall not now discuss it. No matter
where you place it, the power to legislate against
slavery is not legitimate incident to it, and can
not by any just rule Of constitutional construction
be derived from it. The object, the end, is no
where sanctioned by the Constitution, therefore the
means cannot be implied. The argument of the
North stated briefly, is this That the object of the
power to egislate over the Territories is to give
them good government, and that the exclusion OF
that object The conclusion Is not warranted by
the premises. considering II a general pro-
position, without reference to peculiar form Of
government; taken in that connexion 1t s not only
Illogical, but atrocous. 1t is assuming that there
implied power given to the head of our po-
htical system to war against it's members-a power
to stamp with reprobaton the institutions of fifteen
States OF the Republic, to declare their institutions
inconsistent with good government, and to forbid
their adoption, even if desired by the people, by
the inhabitants of the common domain of all the
States. There lies the real question between US.
This pretension is not only not warranted by the
Constitution, but brings you in direct collision with
the fundamental principles of this Government and
of all good government. This Government was
established for the protection of the rights of per-
sons and the rights OF property OF the political com
munities which adopted it. These are the primary
objects of all good government. The protection of
property is the ofindustry of national
progress of civilization. No government can stand
in America, or ought TO stand any where, which
brings its powers in hostility to the property of the
people. These principles the foundation of the
positions which | assumed at the opening of this
Congress. They elected much animadversion
from the press of the North, and some from people
at the South who are among us, but not of us.
desire here, again. to reaffirm them. shall stand
by them; if their maintenance by the South costs
the Union, it is your fault, not ours. Our lives,
our property, our constitutional privileges all
really involved in the issue. Your position offers
the fate of Hay, or, at best, OF Jamaica, or re-
sistance to lawless rule trust there is nothing in
our past history which ought to induce you to
doubt which alternative we shall accept. Though
the Union may perish, though slavery may perish,
l warn my countrymen never TO surrender their
right to an equal participation in the common pro-
perty of the republic, their right TO full and
ample protection Of their property from their own
government. The day they do this deed s'their
fall will be like that of Lucifer, never TO rise
again"
This general duty of Government to protect the
property of the people is obviously just that it is
usually admitted, with the qualification of except
ing slave property. This very exception is but as
sertng in more odious form hostility TO rights
The principle upon which the exception is pre-
tended TO be based is, that slavery is peculiar in
stitution and is against the common law of man
kind. If slavery is peculiar institution, have 4
| reply, then our Government Is peculiar govern
ment, and our Constitution is peculiar consttu
| ton, for have already shown that both the Gov
ernment and the Constitution are impregnates
with the pecuarity. "The common law Of man
kind" is at hest but uncertain term. II want
many Of the essential ingredients of good law. j
is difficult Of ascertanment and more difficult 4
enforce. take its best exponent to be the prac
tice of mankind. Tested by this rule the position
of our opponents is untenabe. There is no perioc
in the history Of the human race in which slavery
has not existed in great portion Of the earth. II
was the universal practice Of mankind from the
days Of Abraham until the formation Of our Con-
stitution. II was expressly authorized and sane
toned by the Of St. Peter in the sixteenth
century, and was at that time the general law Of
Christendom. At the formation Of our Constitution
property in slaves recognised and protected in
some form by every civilized government in the
world. II our constitutional rights TO the protection
of our slave property is TO be subjected 10 this
test, this new invention of our opponents 'sthe
common law Of mankind" we claim 20 stand upon
the law il stood when the compact was made
IL is the legal and just rule Of constituting private
contracts IL is equally just when applied 10 the
position Of public compacts. II Is the only mode OF
argiving at the true and meaning OF the par
ties 10 the compact in relation 10 the test applied
At that day slavery lawful in every country
In the world where il was not prohibited by law.
The dictum Of Lord Mansfield TO the contrary in
Somersett's case, in 1872, outside of the case
before him, against the express decision of Lord
Hardwcke and other eminent English jurists ON
the precise point, and disaYowed fifty years
afterwards in n Judicial decision by Lord Stowell,
one Of the most able. learned, and accomplished Of
England's judges. That such the common
law OF these colonies Lord Mansfield himself in the
referred 20, expressly affirmed; and that such
was the understanding Of the law by the States
who formed our Constitution is conclusively proved
by the lact that emancipation, where il has AIKEN
place, has been effected in every instance bat ono
by express prohibition; and il is further shown by
the uniform protection which this Government,
from its foundation, has given 10 property in slaves
without inquiry into its origin. This Government
has no power 10 declare what shall or what shall
not be property, or 10 regulate the manner places
Of its enjoyment except the Of patent ri ghts
and copyrights. This power belongs 10 the State
governments TO the extent that il exists anywhere
Whatever any Of the States recognise as property,
it Is the duty Of this Government 70 protect. When
IL places itself in hostility TO property thus Sc
cured IL becomes enemy TO the people, and
ought 10 be corrected or subyerted. This is a
4ucsion NnFh blltCs ulc TlgntS VI All tne StatcS.
This is the only rule which can preserve the bar
mony Of the Union, and enable the General Gov
ernment 70 perform mpartially It's duties to States
having different interests aud institutions. We
have no right 10 complain, and VIC do not complain
Of any policy which our confcderates may impose
upon their citizens in relation TO slavery with
in their own limits do we complain Of the
opinions of individuals i'm reference TO il. Massa
chusctts can send Aboltionsts here If she chooses
and she makes free Of the right. What we
have the right 10 demand, and what we do demand,
is, that they shall not mprcss their anti-slavery
opinions upon the Legislation Of this Government
We neither desire to force policy upon her. nor
will we submit TO have hers forced upon us We
offer her the power and the resources Of the repub-
lie 20 protect her property. We require the same
for ourselves. What object Of material wealth,
animate or ipanimate, recognised by the laws Of
the northern States, have failed to protect
None. When have we ever attempted, by legisla-
tion or otherwise, TO upon her domestic pocya
Never. We have not only protected her wealth.
when created or acquired, bat we have done
more-we have aided her, by our Legislation, 10
create II. ny our navigation laws we have given
her the monopoly Of our coasting trade By dis.
tariffs we have nvigorsted and stimu.
atcd the arm Of her industry. We have followed
with our aws her ships freighted with her pro-
perty, and her hardy seamen In pursuit of wealth,
over the tracklcss ocean, to the uttermost parts of
Inc world. They have traversed every ocean;
hey have stood upon every isle of the sea and upon
off,