Washington sentinel., 1854-03-14
THE EFFECT OF SENATOR BADGERS
AMENDMENT TO THE NEBRASKA

AMENDMENT TO THE NEBRASKA
BILL.
We fear that Senator Badgers amendment
to the Nebraska and Kansas bill is msunder
stood. No one who reads it carefully can doubt
that the purpose of it was to establish and
place beyond the reach of doubt and cavil the
doctrine of congressional non-intervention in
regard to slavery in the Territories. No one
who reads it over carefully, and without suspi-
cion and prejudice, can doubt that such also is
the effect Of it. That amendment is in the fol
lowing words:
| "Proriaed, That nothing contained in this act
| shall be construed 10 revive or put in force any
| law or regulation which may have existed prior
| 10 the act of the 9th of March, 1920, either pro-
tecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing sla-
very
Much stress is laid upon the fact that ante
rior to and contenlporaneous with the acquisi-
ton of that territory, the French law recognised
and established slavery in it. Then came the
Missouri compromise repeating that law. It
is now contended by some that the clause in
the Nebraska and Kansas bill which repeals
the Missouri compromise would and ought to
revive the old French law, but that Mr.. Bad
gers amendment intervenes to prevent such
revival. 1t is thence argued that the south is
deeply wronged by his amendment, and much
of vehement defamation, as well as specious
sophistry, is employed to excite the south
against the bill so long as this amendment is
retained, and an earnest appeal is made to the
House of Representatives to strike it out OF
the bill.
Now, before we address ourselves to the in
vestigation of this question thus raised we take
leave to say that the experienced politicians,
the wise statesmen, and the eminent patriots in
the Senate are as capable of judging in the
premises as any other persons whatsoever.
The friends of the constitutional doctrine Of
federal nou-intcrvention, in that august body,
could not have been bribed or fooled into
surrender of it. 1t is poor compliment to
that body to suppose that it was SO ignorant as
not to know the effect and import Of its own
language, and that, in adopting an amendment
with the view and purpose Of more completely
establishing that doctrine, they blindly, stu.
pidly foolishly established the contrary doctrine,
and thus absolutely and in the face of the whole
country stultifed themselves.
We now purpose briefly to argue this ques.
ton. When we acquire territory, it comes in.
stantly under the operation Of the Constitution
of the United States. All laws in such terri
tory that are inconsistent with that Constitu.
ton are Immediately cancelled and destroyed.
Do those laws inhibt slavery When the Con-
stitution applies, that prohibition 60 Instant
ceases to exist. Why? Because the Consti-
tuition does not intervene, either to compel the
establishment of slavery or to prohibit it. 1t
makes such territory quo ad hoe perfect blank.
The Constitution protects slavery everywhere
as an institution of some of the sovereign
States which created the Constitution. Then,
in the light of this view, let us suppose that
by the French law slavery was prohibited in
the territory in question; what would be the
effect of the Constitution on such prohibition
VIII any one say it would emphasize and
strengthen it? If SO, he would commit great
error. The Constitution does not create slavery,
1t does not prohibit slavery. 1t pe,mits slavery
in the Territories; and, thus permitting it, it
would be inconsistent with itself to permit
prohibition created BY an anterior colonial
law.
But suppose slavery to exist in new unor.
ganized territory, by virtue Of the laws there in
force; what is the effect Of the Constitution on