Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-15

SLAVERY I'm THE TERRITORIES OF
THE UNITED sTATHs--A VIEW OF
THE CASE.
In the discussion Of this question, the true
and only mode Of investigation is to bring to it
q mind wholly unbiased, indifferent as to the
existence or fion-existence Of slavery. We must
not shut our eyes to the fact that our fore
fathers, imported slaves by the cargo, sold
them, held them in slavery for themselves,
and left them an Inheritance to their children;
that they gave their sanction to widen the basis
of slavery by extending the period of the
slave trade, and made diligent use Of that ex-
tension Of time to reap rich harvest. We
can, without violence to probability, suppose
that, with such parties, there could be no insu-
perable objections to acknowledging the right
of citizens of any Of the States to take with
them their slaves into the territories, and to
hold them there as property AS the value Of
slavery at the north declined, conviction of its
wrong awoke, and as its value continued to de-
cline, conviction of its moral guilt grew strong
err. Interest and conscience went hand in
hand. While interest profted, conscience lay
torpid; but as the gains Of interest declined,
conscience gradually grew stronger, until at
length, interest feeling itself burdened by sla-
very in cold cline, conscience, fully aroused,
Indignantly cast off the then proftless burden.
Interest was thus doubly indebted to conscience
first, for sleeping while slavery was profitable,
and, secondly, for awakening just in the nick Of
time when it became burden, 70 be freed by
conscience's grateful stroke.
Z It should therefore be remembered by this
interest that, at the time the Constitution was
formed, it was fat and lethargic from satiating
gains, and conscience was dull and slumbering
This interest should also bear in mind that
conscience has now, since it has no sin
of its own to guard against become watch
full as Argus and sharper than q two-edged
sword towards its sin in others. This con-
science should bear in mind the proper limit
fits action; that, having extinguished slavery
where it had the right it is not called
upon to remedy the wrong, if wrong it be, OF
its ancestors, where it has no right. To
seek to do SO is morbid sensibility. 1t has no
more right to plumber or to wrong its fellow
citizens of other States, and ofthe national do
main, than to preach crusades against slavery
wherever it exists. The northern conscience
of the present day is not responsible for the
acts Of its forefathers, and therefore not re-
quired to violate existing rights to make
doubtful reparation of past repnted wrongs
We propose to discuss this question with an
eye single to truth and toright. Let every one
SO read. In SO doing we shall content our
selves with throwing out the seminal ideas,
rather than an elaborate and detailed dis
cussion.
In the first place we state that, at the period
of the formation of the national confederation,
slavery was universal, existing in every State;
second, that it is distinctly acknowledged in
the Constitution of the United States, and pc
remptory provision directed for its prsserva
ton, by the surrender Of fugitive slaves third,
that provision was made for charging its basis,
by legalizing and encouraging the importations
Of slaves up to 1908. III.
The Constitution was formed by a union Of
the States, they surrendeiing to the national
government such powers as were essential to
it as the organ in all foreign Intercourse, and
such internal jurisdiction as could not harmo-
niously be carried on by the States separately
AS the national government acquires terri
tory, whether by cession from the Indians, by an
nexation, by conquest, or by purchase, the
question arises: Should our citizens migrate to
these territories, what would be their condition
their rights2 We viii take the first case, that
of cession by the Indians. VIII they be sub
ject to the existing, the municipal laws, the
lea loci Of the Territory? That is, Indian law,
which admits, recognises, and protects slavery !;
SO that by the municipal law of the Territory
the whole Of the national domain at the time of
forming the Constitution, and ever since, has
recognised and practised slavery. By it, there
fore, as criterion, slavery is authorized and
throughout the length and breadth
of the original domain. Is there any prohibi-
ton in the Constitution? Is there any au-
thority given under the Constitution to Con-
gress to prohibit it? IF there be such power,
does not the right to hold slaves in this Terri
tory exist until such prohibition is exercised? 2.
Does not the Constitution recognise slavery
and provide for its preservation and perpetual
ton by imperative directions for the surrender
Of fugitive slaves? What rights Of property
do citizens carry with them into our original
national domain? If they take with them the
right to any property, where is the Distinction?
Does that species Of property which alone has
the special acknowledgment and guaranteed
protection of the national government, find
itself without protection on the national do
main, supposing even the municipal law Of
the Indians recognising and protecting it to be
1t would be strange, indeed, if
the only property to which the national protec-
ton was especially pledged. should be the only