Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-18
WASHINGTON, d. c.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY IS, 1854.
THE POLICY OF NON IN RELA
TON TO SLAVERY.


TON TO SLAVERY.
The advocates of the policy Of Non-lnterven
tion by the Federal Government in relation to
Slavery, say that it is the only constitutional,
Democratic, SAFE and bens fcent policy, !" old
as the Government itself and founded upon
the doctrine Of strict construction"
Let us test them.
Congress was empowered by the Constitu-
ton to put an end to the slave trade in 1908,
and thereby cut of the supply Of foreign slaves
to the Southern market and it did exercise
this power the moment it had the right to do
So This was Intervention. Was it constitu-
tional, democI attic, safe, and benefoent?
clause was inserted in the Constitution,
STIMULATING that person held to service or la
Dor in one State, escaping into another, should
be delivered up on claim, 60 As this was by
its very terms clause OF compact, containing
and implying no grant Of power to Congress to
provide for its execution, but to be fulfilled by
the States, we hold that its intent and effect
were not to impose any duty Of Intervention
on the part of the Federal Government. But
Congress assumed power, in 1898, over the
subject and passed law to carry into effect
this provision, and in 1850 again assumed
power, passing another law far moro stringent
and arbitrary, for the same purpose Was not
this, Intervention by the Federal Government
with Slavery And who are responsible for it
but these same noisy advocates of Non-lnter-
vention as the only true policy?
Congress- in 1902, re-enacted the entire slave
code Of Virginia and Maryland, in the ten
miles square ceded by those States to the Gen
eral Government; and Slavery to this day ex-
lists in this District, in virtue alone Of Congress
sional ensotment.
Is thu Intervention, constitutional, demo
cratic, safe, and benefcent? Q, yes!
Congress- in 1898, prohibited the importation
Of any slaves into the Territory of Mississippi,
brought from without the limits Of the United
States, under heavy penalties, providing at the
same time that any slaves imported in violation
of the law should at once receive their freedom
Was this Non-lnteryention? Was the law
constitutional, Democratic, SAFE benefcenta
Congress, in 1904, not only enacted a similar
law in relation to the Territory of Louisiana,
but it prohibited any slave from being carried
into that Territory, except by citizen Of the
United States, the bona fde owner Of such
slave, removing to the Territory for actual set
Element.
Was this Non Intervention Was the law
constitutional, democratic, safe, benefcent2
Congress, in 1907, enacted n law regulating
the traffic in slaves coastwise.
Was this Non Intervention?
The Federal Executive, when the Spanish
colonies on the continent revolted, and their
armies were meditating descent upon Cuba,
which they had perfect right to seize and
revolutionize If they could, admonished them
sternIy that the Government Of the United
States could not tolerate any such act as it
would inevitably involve the emancipation of
the slaves in Cuba, and thereby cndanger tho
stability Of the slave system in the South.
Shareholders and their Northern allies, the
pretended advocates Of Non-Intcrvention, have
always approved Of that gross act Of Interven-
ton, just as they have approved Of the moro
recent threats Of the Administration, through
its "organ" in Washington, to intervene for
tho preservation OF Slavery in Cuba, against
the efforts of Great Britain and France
in favor Of its abolition. Yes--this very q or
gam with its brazen throat speaking 6ercely
for Non Intervention, had tho hardihood few
weeks ago to threaten Spain with the Inter-
vention Of the Federal Government, M 81 armis,
to preserve tho Slavery Of the African race in
Cuba
The records Of our Diplomacy show that
formerly repeated attempts were made by the
Governmento Of the United States to negotiate
treaty with Great Britain for the reclamation
of fugitive slaves from the South, finding q ref
uge in Canada; and that few years ago for
NAL demands wero made upon the British Gov
ernment and urged with great pertinacity for
compensation for slaves in American vessels
driven by stress Of weather into British ports
Was that Non-Intervention?
The truth is, historically, Non-Intervention
10 . lie. II has never been the policy Of the
General Government; il is not now it's policy
The advocates Of it do not believe il, dare not
trust Il, dare not follow Il out to it's legitimate
consequences. What! will they vote for the
repeal Of the law re-enacting the slave code in
the District Of Columbia, for the repeal Of the
law regulating the coastwiso slave trade for
the repeal Of the law Of 1893 and that Of 1850,
on the subject Of fugitives from service or la.
bort Win they join with us in condemning
the action Of the Federal Executive ia uphold
ing Slavery in Cuba, and in demanding fugi-
tive slaves from Great Britain What is their
real msanings Simply this: that Intervention,
whom Il will answer the purposes Of Slavery, is
agrest and glorious Principle Of Democracy 7;
but, when Il viii inure TO the benefit Of Free
dom, - unconstitutional and anti Democratic;
that Intervention Is always wrong when against
Slavery, always right when for Slavery.
Intervention The haId hun,hupl Inava