Washington sentinel., 1854-07-11

give her free blacks the rights of citizenship,
and then has the effrontery TO say that by that
act Of Massachusetts, those free blacks may go
into the southern States on an equality with the
southern whites. The idea is monstrous. The
mere statement oft precludes the necessity of
any argument with regard TO it. The Consti.
tuition of the United States was not made to
protect the rights of negroes any more than to
protect the rights OF horses and horned cattle;
and the State of Massachusetts, has no more
authority under the Constitution, to confer the
rights of citizenship on a negro in southern
State than to confer the same privilege upon
wolf or dog.
Every State is bound to protect itself from
dangerous elements by police regulations. No
State has gone further than Massachusetts, in
this regard. South Carolina had right under
the cogent law of necessity and of selfdefence
to take any reasonable precaution that negro
abolitionists from the north or from foreign
ports shall not be permitted to mingle with
and corrupt her slave opulation-dssemina
ing abolition pamphlets and pictures, and ex-
citing insubordination and insurrection. Illi-
nois, Indiana, and several non-slaveholding
States have positively forbidden a free negro to
come within their borders under any pretence
whatever. They are all excluded, entirely ex-
cluded no matter how many times Massa.
oh I'd l.
lures, under the instigation of hypocricy and
fanaticism, may have clothed them with the
toga of citizenship. Why do not the aboli-
tionists complain of that? Why does not the
Providence Journal make complaint?
If a northern State has the right to exclude
free negroes, it seems to us that southern
State has the right to do the same. South
Carolina and Louisiana having the right to ex-
cude the entrance of free negroes within their
borders, must have the right to fix any condi-
tons they deem fit on the privilege to put
foot on their soil. The South Carolina law
does not apply to free negroes from Massa-
chusetts, any more than to free negroes from
Virginia or North Carolina, or from the British
Empire. Negro sailors on board British ships
were subjected to the same restraints as those
on board Yankee ships and Mr.. Matthews the
English consul at Charleston took the same
ground with the abolitionists of the north.
That official asserted that the negro sailors
who had been confined were British subjects,
and entitled by treaty stipulations to all the
Il - II
in the port of Charleston, or in any part of the
United States. BE brought suit; but the
English government had sense enough to per.
ceive the folly of the proceeding, and wisdom
enough to order the suit to be abandoned and
to transfer Mr.. Matthews to some more congo.
nial theatre for the display of his talents.
We trust that the Providence Journal and
those who think with it will ponderthese things,
free from prejudice and passion. If so, they
will not arrive at a harsher conclusion than
that which the English government has acted
on. They will admit that the right to exclude
free negroes implies the right to fix and fasten
any conditions on their admission that State
has right to protect itself from dangerous
elements by needful police regulations; that
the Constitution was made for the white race,
and not for the black; that it intended to pro-
tect the white man in the enjoyment of his
rights, and secure to him the possession of his
property, and not to deprive him of his rights
or confer privileges on his property. None
but confirmed abolitionists or those whose hos.
tility to the south is carrying them toward abo-
Providence Journal will pause and consider
before it travels further in a wrong direction.