Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-16

the pressure of a high and urgent puDhc ne
cessity; it is true, she was forced to yield to the
impending storm of fanaticism which ragged
wildly and fearfnlly through the land; 1T is
true, that the alternative before her were,
the exclusion of Missouri from the confederacy,
with its probably fatal consequences to the
Union, or her admission on terms destructive
of her equality and sovereignty as State, or
her admission with the not less unconstitutional
interdict of slavery north of $50 3O<. Between
these alternatives she was forced, in her then
position, to choose. Mr.. Calhoun, in lS47,
thought she erred in surrendering, for mere
temporary purposes, high principles of the
Constitution. Others may think differently ;
but she nevertheless did yield, and the record
painfully exhibits the fact. J. advert to these
events with no pleasure, but to show the real
position in which the question now presents
itself before u.s. The law has been in force for
thirty-four years, and important arrangements
have been made to conform to it.
Now, sir, how does the question stand? A
proposition comes from northern statesmen,
made in a spirit of fraternal kindness, to recti-
fy the wrong which their predecessors, in a
moment Of sectional excitement, forced upon
the south and the country. They propose to
repeal that restriction, to remove that obnoxi-
GUS interdict and to leave the question of the
future exclusion or introduction of slavery to
be determined by the Constitution and by the
wishes of the people inhabiting that Territory.
And yet the gentleman from Maryland is not
satisfied with this proposal, but would have
them, by an act of Congress, to revive and re-
enact the status of slavery which existed at the
date of the cession. Can we, in candor and
Justice, expect this under the circumstances !?
Ought we to ask it? For one, sir ! unhesitat-
ingly say no.
Unquestionably the true principle Of con-
gressional on-intervention--such as it was un-
dcrstood and practised by the earlier statesmen
of this country-is, that every acquisition of
new territory whether toleratng or prohibiting
slavery, should be received and recognised as
| such, and allowed SO to continue until modified
or changed by the organic and fundamental law
of the people resident therein. And yet pro-
position as plain as we hold this to be may, by
the legislation of near half century, become
SO complicated as TO render it impracticable to
restore Territory precisely to the condition in
which VIC received it. In human affairs wis
dom consists in the nearest approximation to
right which is attainable under the circum-
stances of our situation. This may be regard
| ed as the aspect in which these Territories
now stand before us for our legislation, and
| such the character and effect of the present
bill.
But chi bono? for what purpose? ask our
| friends at the north, to expose themselves to
| inevitable destruction by encountering the hot
passions of an excited people in re-enacting
| the local laws of slavery in that Territory,
when, if our construction of the Constitution
| be a sound one, that instrument itself will af-
| ford us, under this bill, the most ample and
perfect protection.
| No one questions that the effect Of this bill
is to leave to the Constitution its free and I'M
restricted operation in that Territory. Then,
if the doctrine uniformly maintained by the
south be sound one, and hold it to be SO,
| that the citizens of every State in the Union
have equal rights in the Territories; and that
| all property, recognised as such by the Consti-
tuition, will be protected there by that instru-
ment, does not the southern emigrant stand up
on ground as high and impregnable, under this
bill, as if the local laws of the Territory were in
fact revived and re-enacted2 .
Sir, we all remember the proposition. sub
mitted in l848, by the select committee, of
which Mr.. Clayton was chairman, and Of
which Mr.. Calhoun and the president Of the
Senate, Mr.. Atchison, were members, and in
which they concurred for the organization of
the Territories of California ard New Mexico.
| That bill extended the Constitution over those
Territories, and, without repeating the Mexican
law prohibiting slavery, it left it to the Su-
preme Court of the United States to decide
| whether that Constitution did not, proprio
rigore, repeal those laws, and protect the rights
of the STAKEHOLDER. This bill received an almost
united southern vote, under the confident de-
claration of opinion, that the Supreme Court
could not do otherwise than decide in favor Of
| that right under the Constitution. The north,
Wit oil INIT IL,
| btrament of that high tribunal If the south
was safe in the position which she then as
sumed with. the difficulty growing out of the
intervention of the Mexican anti-slavery laws,
how much better is her condition under this
bill, which removes every impeachment to the
free and unrestricted enjoyment of our rights
under the Constitution.
But it is contended by the gentleman from
Maryland that slavery can alone exist by viz.
tue of positive local law; that the relation of
master and slave is not recognised beyond such
local limits; and that whilst the Constitution
affords to slavery protection, where locally es-
tablished within the United States, it affords
none where not so locally established / do
not concur with that gentleman in any Of these
legal propositions. He can undoubtedly find
judicial decisions in support of the doctrine
which he maintains, that slavery exists alone
by virtue Of positive statute law. But there
are other decisions, of equal or greater weight,
holding the opposite opinion; and his doctrine
is contradicted certainly by the whole history of
that institution upon this continent.
Slavery existed in all the colonies before
any laws were passed to authorize it. The
supreme court of Louisiana has, with great
historical accuracy, announced the true state of
facts on this point: Slavery existed in the
colonies before any legislative act of the
mother country authorizing their introduction,
except the charter of the African company,
and before any colonial act had passed declar.
ing its existence" And so, in like manner,
the supreme court of Virginia has said: "The
slavery of the African has existed from the
time Of bringing them into the colony--in
many States, by express enactments, in others
by CUSTOM" In Virginia, it is certain, that
slavery existed long before any local laws
were passed to authorize it.
Nor is the position less unsound that slavery
will not be recognised beyond the limits Of the
local government which has established IL. |