Washington sentinel., 1854-04-25
-------------------4eGs> r-----------
THE BADGER AMENDMENT.

In looking through our exchanges, we find
that several of the southern journals, that came
out at first against the Badger amendment to
the Nebraska bill, have, on examination, frank
ly confessed their error, and now announce
themselves its advocates and friends. Among
them we may mention the Jackson Mssissip-
plan and the Natchez Free Trader.
We cannot conceive how or why any consti-
tutional democrat, whether he comes from the
north or the south, can object to the Badger
amendment. 1t certainly does not recognise
abolitionism or freesoilism. 1t certainly does
not say that shareholders shall not carry their
slaves into new Territories. If we understand
at all the doctrine of the democratic and State
rights party, that doctrine afirms that Congress
shall not intervene either to restrict or to extend
slavery. That doctrine recognises the rights
and the equality of States, and the rights of
individual property. In word, it recognises
the Constitution Of the United States. Itwould
put into force the provisions Of that Constitu-
ton. Ii would say to the north, / do not in
ferdict the transfer of your property from Yer
mont to Nebraska. It would say to the south,
do not interdict the transfer Of your property
from South Carolina to Kansas. Have you a
horse, carry it to Nebraska; have you slave,
carry it to Kansas. That is the Constitution, and
anything to the contrary is against the Const-
tuition. That is all that the Badger amendment
means to assert. 1t is the mere italicization and
- &c &c info apt,n
that Judge Douglas put into the bill and made
its life and soul. The old French law is moth
ing. No local law, anterior to the acquisi-
ton of Louisiana, whether it inhibits or per-
mits slavery in that Territory, is anything. But
the Constitution is ererythtng, and that permits
masters to carry their slaves into Nebraska and
Kansas, if they choose to do so; and when a
State government is formed it rests with the
proper voters Of that Territory to make it either
slave or free State, as they choose. That is
the doctrine of non-intervention, and that is the
doctrine of the Badger amendment. We fear
nay, we are pretty certain--that the Whie
source from which it comes rather discredits i
with some democrats; but they should remem
Der that the great bulk, indeed nearly all of the
southern democratic senators voted for it, anc
they certainly have as much sagacity and tai
ent as the whig senators and secondly, they
should remember that Mr.. Badger is, himself, q
southern man and a stakeholder. There is no
trick, there is no fraud, in that amendment. II
there were, such men as Messrs. Atchison,
Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead, Butler, Clay,
Dawson, Dixon. Dodge Of Iowa, Douglas, Evans,
Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hunter, Jones of Iowa,
Jones Of Tennessee Mason, Morton, Norris,
Petit, Pratt. Shields, Slidell, Stuart Toucey,
Walker, Weller, and Williams would not have
voted ioT it. The whole opposition to it, on
the part Of the very few southern men who
have opposedit, originated we believe in dis
trust Of the source from which it came. Their
fears are groundless. We hope they will dis.
miss them; for the Badger amendment, as we
understand it, is but the more emphatic asser.
ton Of the doctrine Of congressional non.inter.
yention.