Southern standard., 1851-08-23

the wnole suDJeOt An
l am, sir, very respectfully
Your obedent Servt,
EDITOR so. STANDARD.
COLUMBUS, August 2lst., 1901.
Dear Sir Your note of this date conveying inc
note of my friend, Mr. Cobb, is before % ne re-
The enact LANGUAGE used by me, on the occasion re-
ferred to- cannot pretend to give, but the
of what | intended to say and did say, as 70 80
was this IL stated to the audience, that tne fea
in issue between was-whether the save nUeuS
who might remove the territories acquired lo
Mexico with his slave property, would De protec'eu
there in its enjoyment / asserted that "i'hou'
laws passed in pursuance of the constltuton 10 Pu"
ash criminalty-the harboring, conceang OF enucine
away slaves from their owners in the new territories
similar TO the laws existing in Mississippi and most
of the other southern Statesslaves could ana would
ba barbored and concealed by the insovent abolition
sts free-soers and Mexicans IN tnose terrore' anu
tho owners deprived of their property without the
least chance of legal redress. l then stated that
was addressing the assembled intelligence OF tne ci!
of Columbus-men of age, experience anu apily' ~
the legal profession, (some OF them) wnose
was to study and understand the constitution anu
of the government under which we live calleo up
on this audience, we'll as on opponents VINO assei'
that slavery is protected in those terrtores' curing
their territorial condition by the constitution and laws
of the United States, to state (any one OF al o
whether any law existed in the territories by whch
is made penal harbor, entice away or concea save
in said territories, from his owner. onereo 10 yleio
ha StA
so assert said had asked the question repeatedly
no one had ever asserted that such laws, pun-
shing theharboring concealng or entcng away slaves
from their owners in the territories existed III the
territories acquired from Mexico. remarked that my
question had been replied to by asking another-has
CONGRESS ever passed such laws in the creation OF any
other territorial oouernnent"-that had answered IN
the language Of Mr. Toombs, Union friend OF Geor-
gia of high authotty, with my opponents, as well as
myse-a man in whose talents, learning and ntegri-
ty long and intimate association, had induced me TO
place great reliance. In speech in the Congress OF
the United States, in February lo3o, MI. looihos'
speaking the subject, SAID
n "For the first thirty years of our history this
general duty to protect this great interest equally
0 with euery other, was universally admitted and
: fairly performed by every department OF the Gov
:, eminent"
i ''In 1902, Georgia eeded her western lands, she
. protected slavery IN her grant, and the Government
r complied NTH her stipulatioms.
i In 1903 the United Stated acquired Louisiana
/ from France by purchase. There is no special re-
ference to slavery in the treaty; it protected
/, only under the general term of property. This
acquisition after the treaty divided into
u two Territories-over both of which governments
,s were established. The laO Of slavery obtained IN
J., the whole country at the time acquired ii. Con-
n, gress prohibited the foreign and domestic slave
trade in these Territories, but gaze the protection Of
re ats laws to SLAVE eigrating thither ith their
$ slaues. Upon the admission of Louisiana into the
Union, new government established by Con-
gress over the rest of the country under the name
of the Missouri territory This act also attempt
ed no exclusion; shareholders emigrated to the
% country with their slaves, and aCere protected By
> their government In 1919 Florida was acquired
by purchase its laws recognized and protected SLAVE
IL ry at the time of the acquisition. The United
States eEtended the reorganization and protec-
= - ton
. 81 have thus briefly reviewed the whole terrific
:. rial legislation of Congress from the beginning o
~ ~ the Government until 1920, aud it sustains my
" proposition, that within that period there was nc
y = precedent where Congress had exercised, or at
y tempted to exercise, any primary constitutional
III power to prevent shareholders from emigrating
with their slave property to any portion ofthe pub
lie lands; and that Ihad ertended the protection OF
~ cts taOs and its such persons, all
~ except in the Northwest Territory, where it was
a. fettered and restrained by organic law estab
ished before the formation of our present Consttr
Y tion.'
In address to his constituents in October, 1850
- Mr.. Toombs further said
va "But it is said that non-interventon has aread,
in been the doctrine and policy of the South. Thi
&C. idea results from total misconcepton of our pas
er history. In all of our former acquisitions, excep
e. Oregon, slavery was expressly protected by Law
MS when we acquired them; therefore we had no neee
ou OF any legislation TO secure our equal enioymen
So ofthem had only to resist hostile legislation t.
n secure our rights. In Oregon there was no Law
n upon the subject, resisted unavailingy hostil
bv legislation, and were excluded. The ACQUISITION
IS from mexico presented the first case where ther
ed was to0 against slavery, upon which the direc
on question arose OF the power and duty of Congress
of to repeal it. The doctrine, as now applied IS bu
,at two yeaIs old. Gen. Cass, in the PRESIDENT
~ canvass of l848, finding himsalf embarrassed b
the contctlng opinions and feelings of the countr
upon the question, seized upon on-interyention a
- life-boat in the political storm of Presidents
canvass. 1t is worthy of remark that he held tba
~ Legislation was necessary to our entry and enioy
W ment of our property in the country, that the lar
OF Mertco excluded as, butdenied the power of Con
- gress to remove them; his Southern friends took
be much OF the heresy thep could carry, and he'll
,ot that II there were any such laws they were voic
under our constitution, and united with Gen. Cas-
&c IN denying the power to remove them Its friend
must therefore restrict always" to two years
iaIs was the beginning, and hope it viii be tb
end of this dangerous heresy; except by some hal
dozen Southern men, it was unanimously repudi
ated by the whole South in both branches of Con
gress during the late session. It's nert apDearanc
my De from the North. We had as well clinp to
d mill stone about our neck, for sakety amid tb
Gu ooundless waste of bottomess waters. as to tbi
e doctrine OF intervention for an anchor of safet
TO our slave property. This doctrine of inter
Ventlon deprlves us of all hope of procuring di
u rect repeal of the Mexican laws
argued therefore, that this dutv of nrotac,;o h