The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-23

ure, designed now to be its leading measure,
would be set down as very imbecile Or unreli-
able
Let the People therefore be admonished that
there is danger, imminent danger, such only
as they by prompt and stern demonstrations
all over the North and West can dissipate.
THE POLICY OF NoN-INTERvENTION IN RELA-
TON TO SLAVERY.
The advocates of the policy of Non-Tnterven-
ton by the Federal Government in relation to
Slavery, say that it is the only constitutional,
democratic, safe, and benefcent 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 off the supply of foreign slaves
to the Southern market and it did exercise
this power the moment it had the right to do
30. This was Intervention. Was it constitu-
tional, democratic, safe, and benefcent?
A clause was inserted in the Constitution,
Dor in one State, escaping into another, should
be delivered up on claim, &C. 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 a law to carry into effect
this provision, and in 1850 again assumed
| power, passing another law far more stringent
and arbitrary, for the same purpose. Was not
this Intervention by the Federal Government
with Slavery? An who are responsible for it
but these same noisy advocates of Non-Inter-
vention as the only true policy?
Congress, in 1902, re-enacted the entire slave
code Of Virginia and Maryland, in the ten
miles square coded by those States to the Gen
eral Government; and Slavery to this day ex-
lists in this District in virtue alone of Congress
sional enactment
Is this Intervention, constitutional, demo-
cratic, safe and benefcent? 0, 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 receives their freedom
Was this NOn-Intervention Was the law
constitutional, democratic, safe, benefcent?
Congress, in 1904, not only enacted 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, benefcent!
Congress, in 1907, enacted 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
revolutonize if they could, admOnished them
sternly 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 endanger the
stability of the slave system in the South
Shareholders and their Northern allies, the
pretended advocates of on-Intervention, have
always approved of that gross act of Interven.
ton, just as they have approved Of the more
recent threats of the Administration, through
| ,@o &C - 800 G.
the preservation of Slavery in Cuba, against
the efforts of Great Britain and France
in favor of its abolition. Yes-this very " or
gan" with its brazen throat speaking fercely
for Non Intervention, had the hardihood few
weeks ago to threaten Spain with the Inter
vention Of the Federal Government N ct arms
to preserve the Slavery of the African race in
Cuba!
The records of our Diplomacy show that
formerly repeated attempts were made by the
Government of the United States to negotiate a
treaty with Great Britain for the reclamation
OF fugitive slaves from the South, finding ref
uge in Canada; and that a few years ago for
NAL demands were made upon the British Gov
eminent, 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
is lie. 1t has never been the policy of the
General Government; it is not now its policy.
The advocates of it do not believe it dare not
trust it, dare not follow it out to its 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 coastwise slave trade, for
the repeal of the law of 1893 and that of 1850,
on the subject of fugitives from service or Ia
Dor? Will they join with us in condemning
the action of the Federal Executive in uphold
ing Slavery in Cuba, and in demanding fugi-
tive slaves from Great Britain What is their
real meaning? Simply this: that Intervention
when it will answer the purposes Of Slavery, Is
great and glorious Principle of Democracy
but when it will inure to the benefit Of Free
dom, is unconstitutional and anti-Democratic
that Intervention is always wrong when against
Slavery, always right when for Slavery.
Non-Intervention! The bald humbug Leave