The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1854-06-28
Nebraska and Slavery.

In the call issued to the People OF Ohio
for the '.fusion" convention. to be held in
the city of Columbus, on the 18th of July,
there is this remarkable sentences:
"Itis necessary now to recur to the Con-
stitution. In that instrumental will be vain
to seek for any recognition of slavery, even
as fact, outside Of Slave States. or for
any power given to Congress to legisiate
in its behalf"
We confess we are unable to keep up
with the times if this sentence is not re.
-cognition Of the doctrine contained in the
Nebraska bill. Ii there is in the Consti.
tuition no recognition Of slavery, even as
a fact" in the territories, as declared by
the foregoing extract, how could slavery
exist there. or what right has Congress to
legislate on the subject in any way what
ever? II slavery be not recognized by the
Constitution. "outside Of Slave States," it
cannot exist in the territories of the United
States except by positive Statutes; and un-
der the Nebraska bill that Statute must be
enacted by non. Shareholders. for none 9TH
ers will have an existence there. or at least
if they are Shareholders, their slaves will
not be in the territories. Who. then, be.
ieves that the non.slaveholding people Of
Kansas or Nebraska will create slavery in
those territories? No man in his heart be.
lieves ii; but many. for purposes purely
political. may assert it. We hold the po-
sition that property in man, IN addition to
not being recognized by the Constitution,
is also neither recognized by the law OF
Of nature or OF nations, nor by the COM
mon law. To have an existence, then, in
Kansas or Nebraska positive statute
must first be passed authorizing it, which
we confidently believe Will never be done.
Again. The extract, quoted above,
further declares that sit will be vain to
seek" in the Constitution "for any power
given to Congress to legislate in its [slave.
ry's] behalf" If this be true, does it not
follow that it will also be equally swain to
seek" in the Constitution "for any power
given TO Congress to legisla,e" against sla-
very? If the first proposition be true, SO
also is the second. The whole question,
then, ought to be left to the decision Of the
people of the territories, where il Of right
belongs, and just where the Nebraska bill
leaves it.
We here give that portion Of the Ne.
braska- Kansas bill which has caused SO
much talk, and which has been so bitterly
denounced. Read it carefully and see If
there is anything in it inconsistent with the
sentiment proclaimed, in the above extract.
by those calling the "fusion'' conventions:
"That the constitution and laws OF the
United States, which are not locally inap-
plicable, shall have the same force and ef.
fec, within The said territory of Nebraska
as elsewhere within the United States, ex.
cept the 9th section of the act preparatory
to the admission of Missouri into the Union,
approved March 9th, 1920, which being
incon sistent with the principles Of NoN-IN-
IN THE STATES AND TERRITORIES, as re-
cognized by The legislation Of 1850. (com'
monty called the compromise measures.
is hereby declared imperative and void, il
REING THE TRUE INTENT AND MEANING
Of this act NOT TO legislaie slavery in any
Territory or State, nor to exclude it there.
from, but to leave the people thereof per-
c.c,lv free to form and regulate their do.
mesiic institutions in their OWN WAY. SUB.
JEcr ONLY to the constitution of the United