The primitive Republican. (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-1852, 1851-07-31
NEW SERIES. VOL. . NO IS.


the social relations, which is so Objectionable
to every true Southern mind in the attempt
to abolish slavery in the District of Column
bia. When we express our repugnance at
such abolition, it is because we deny such
power to existover the social relation. The
law of 1850 docs not interfere with it. It
interferes, it is true, as to the particular re-
lation between the particular owner who at
tempts to violate the law and his property
which he is thus attempting to introduce con-
trary to law but in the same way the law
that Furnishes murder interferes, when it
hangs the guilty Size. It there interferes
between the parties i master and his slave,
aud forfeits the property of the former, Dat
1t does not striIse at Ehe social relation, and
until it does so strike, the law is not justly
censurable as an usurpation of power. 1t
may be too severe forfeit, but that is but
an objection to the expediency and not to the
constitutiOnality of the provision.
So perfectly plain and just is this distinc.
ton between interference with the social re.
lation, and interference with the particular
owner violating law and property which he
is attempting to introduce contrary to law
that it behooyes every true Southern man tt
take this ground; so that hereafter the Nortl
may not construe the law Of 1850 into pre-
cedent for interfering with the social relation
If We now most foolishly concede that tn
precedent has been set, in the face of the de
cision of 1874 of the Supreme Court, estab
fishing the law, what can the South say if tn
North should hereafter attack the social re
lation? The North would tell us that VI
had yielded the point; that we had concede
that Congress had exercised power to abo
ish slavery, and they would then point cz
ultingly to the Supreme Court decision, an
say that that body had affirmed the existenC
Of the power exercised by Congress. Ho
could We meet such an argument? We coul
not meet it. The only way is to deny no
that Congress has exercised any power at a
over the social relation, or that the Supren
Court has ever decided any such power to e
ist Neither the law of 1901, nor of 1856
claimed it, and it is worse than folly for Il
South to so concede. Those laws were IL
exercise Of different power, the power
punish the violation of law, and only or
f rated in the case of the party guilty and t
r property concerning which the violation to-
n place.
: BY drawing the distinction, by acknO,
It edging that as penalty for crime, Congr,
can deprive a man Of his slave, we save OF
selves from conceding what We never Dug
to concede, that Congress can interfere wi
) the social relation of master and slave. tt
Congress can so punish for crime is evidt
g by the fact that it would have a right to p,
ish certain offences committed in the Distr
;. by imprisonment or death, and this would
!, temporarily or perpetually depriving the m
ter Of his property!
n Those State Rights men, who say that G.
- gress has already interfered with the soc
relation by the passage of the law of -
>, in the face of all the facts, and of this W
!. and clear distinction, are the worst enem
the South has within her borders.
/