The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-03-02
JUDGE DOUGLAS AND THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEMOCRACY.

DEMOCRACY.
POWERS OF TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES.
The projectors of the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise are alarmed at the excitement
produced in New Hampshire, lest it may throw
that State in the approaching election into the
hands of an anti-Administration majority
Edmund Burke, editor of the New Hampshire
Reporter, avows his appreciation of the Bill,
but he wishes the People distinctly to under
stand that the repeal of the Compromise will
be equivalent to re-establishment of Slavery
throughout the Territory of Nebraska.
"The Nebraska BILL" he SAYS " if it shall
pass both Houses of Congress, repeats the Mis-
souri, Compromise And what will be the effect
of such repeal? Unqueaionabiy TO revive and
re-estabiiSh Slavery ODer thai lrhole region
When Louisiana was ceded to the United
States, the law of Slavery existed over that
whole vast Territory. 1t required no law to
establish the institution-it then existed in fact
and by law. And out of that Territory already
three slave States have been carved, and ad-
mitted into the Union, viz: Louisiana, Arkan-
sas, and Missouri. When they came into the
possession Of the Union as Territories, Slavery
had been planted, and was flourishing upon
their soil and the whole Territory of Louisi-
ana was under the dominion of the law which
established and legalized the Institution. There
FORE when those States came into the Union
the people did not have to establish and ordsin
Slavery The Missouri Compromise repealed
and excluded the institution above the line of
SO deg. 80 min. The repeal Of that Compro-
mise revives and re-establishes Slavery in all
the remaining territory of the Louisiana pur-
chase. Therefore, the law which permits Sla-
very will be revived, and Slavery will exist in
Nebraska and Kansas the very moment the
Nebraska bill receives the sanction of the
President This is the only deduction which
can be logically drawn from the premises"
The law Of Slavery being against natural
right and there being no power in the Fede-
raj Constitution authorizing the enactment or
continuation of such law, we hold that when
Louisiana came under the exclusive jurisdic-
ton of the Federal Government whatever laws
had prevailed there sustaining Slavery, became
that moment, invalid, anull and void" OF
course, as we do not admit the premise of the
Reporter, we repudiate its conolusion~that the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise would re-
vive Slavery throughout the Territory.
But, we need hardly say, that our theory of
Slavery is not that maintained by the South,
acted upon by Congress, and sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. According to their theory, the
validity Of the slave laws Of Louisiana was not
affected by its transfer to the United States
they continued in force throughout the whole
twentieths of the politicians of the country,
Mr.. Douglas included. 1t is not for them,
therefore, to impugn the reasoning of the New
Hampshire Reporter IL the view be correct,
its argument is sound. The Missouri Compro-
mise left undisturbed the law of Slavery in
all of the Territory south of SO deg. 80 min,
and suspended it north of that line. IL it had
been repealed the next Congress, the suspended
law would have again become operative-the
Territory would have been remanded to it's
original condition. The delay of the repeal
does not affect the principle. To repeal the
Law of Freedom in the Territory is to revive
the Code of Slavery, suspended by it. Let the
Democracy of New Hampshire be admonished
that, whatever assurances they may receive to
the contrary, this is the argument which slave
holders will urge, should the Compromise be
repealed.
Mr. Douglas, in letter to the editor Of the
Reporter, scouts this idea with great display
of indignation, and asks
"Do you not know that the Southern men
deny the constitutional poaDer of Congress TO
establish Slavery an the Territoriest Yet in
the teeth of this undeniable fact, which is we'll
known to every man, woman, and child, who
has ever read newspaper, your paper repre-
| sents these gentlemen as proposing to violate,
not only the Constitution, but their own oaths,
by voting 10 establish Slavery an Nebraska and
Kansas! After attempting to fix this brand
Of infamy On the brow of more than twO-thirds
of the members of the United States Senate,
the writer of the article in question proceeds
to show the kindness of his heart and the pu-
rity of his motives, by assuring your readers
that he il no better than those whom he as
sails, and therefore he approves the act and
advises its consnmmatiOn."
We cannot allow Mr.. Douglas to mystfy
this question. Southern men do not propose
to establish Slavery in the Territories by a
positive law of Congress, and therefore his bill
embraces no such provision. They insist that
Congress shall pass no law to exclude Slavery
from the Territories, and therefore his bill
contains no such enactment.
Thus far their course is open and above
board; but here commences the double dealing.
Will the Pe,ple of Territory have the right,
should the Bill pass TO erctuds SLauery? On
this vital question the Bill itself is ambiguous,
Intentionally So although at first sight it may
seem to the uninitiated plain enough. " Inten-
tionaly ambiguous" we say, because the au-
thors of the Bill know that the so called Demo-
Gratis of the South differ toto colo from their
associates of the North, in relation to the power
of the inhabitants of a Territory in respect to
Slavery so that, when it is sought to unite
them in the support of a common measure, in
volving question as to this power, it is neces-
sary to frame the terms of the act so that they
may admit of two directly opposite construc-
tons. Let us see how this purpose is accom-
plished in the Bill under consideration:
The 14th section declares that the laws of
the United States shall be in force in the Ter
ritory, with the exception of the Missouri Com
promise act,
(Which, being inconsistent with the princi-
pie of non-intervention by Congress with Sla-
very in the States and Territories as recog-
missed by the legislation of 1850, commonly call
ed the Compromise Measures is hereby de-
clared imperative and void it being the true
intent and meaning of this act not to kgislate
Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to en-
clude IL thertfrom, but to Leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their domes-
tic institutions IN their oun aoay subject only 10
the Constitution of the United States"