Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-12-26
WEDNESDAY, DEC. 20, 1854.
THE DEMOCRAT ON NEBRASKA.

WEDNESDAI DEC. ~, 1904.
THE DEMOCRAT ON NEBRASKA.
elf the first Legislature of Kansas should pass
a law that slaves should not be held in the Terri
tory and every subsequent one should re-afhrm it,
they would be of no effect in alegal point of view
Times, Of this morning.
The above is a fair sample of the studied mis-
representation of the Whg press, in regard to the
Nebraska act. Kansas, at the present time, is a
free Territory, and it can only be made otherwise
BY the acts of the inhabitants of Kansas them
selves in their local Legislature. The writer in
the Times must belong to the extreme Southern
school of politicians, who believe that the Con-
stituton of the United States legalizes slavery
1t docs no such thing and so it has been decided,
time and again. Slavery is the creature of local
law, and can only exist where it is supported and
protected by law. The Constitution of the United
States legalizes slavery no more than it does po-
lygamy; and If the Times would preach the doc
trine that it does, it will only find sympathizers
among very few of the slavery propigandists of
South Carolina.-DemOcrdt, Of Monday.
The above is 'sfair sample" " of the intelli-
gence or honesty displayed by the Northern dough-
faces who support Douglas Co., in their nefa-
reous attempt to introduce slavery into Kansas
and Nebraska. We do not say that all these men
know that what they say is not true in point of
practical fact, but do say that if they do not
know better, they are surpassed in intelligence by
the commonest slave on Southern plantation
Slavery the Democrat says, "is the creature
of local law, and can only exist where it is sup
ported and protected by law" This sounds very
we'll we wish it was so-but unfortunately for
the cause of freedom such has not been the prac-
ticc; but the reverse has always obtained, so far
as the Territories are concerned, and the Courts
of the U. S. have always decided in favor of the
right of the owner to his slave in the Territories,
and that too under the Constitution Of the U. S.,
as they, the constitutional interpreters understood
it.
Slavery was never legalized in Cafornia-it
was free Territory when we acquired it-and
slavery was expressly prohibited by Mexican law
at the time of its purchase by us. But let us en-
quire what the decision of the U. S. Courts in
regard to slavery in that Territory. number of
slave holders carried their human chattels to that
country to aid them in digging gold. After a
time they wished to return to the States and some
of the slaves claimed their freedom and refused
to return. The case came before the courts and
the decision was in every case for the MASTER
So in Illinois, while Territory, slaves were held
in large numbers, under the laws Of the United
States, and this Notwithstanding the ordinance of
17s7, which applied to this Territory, says:
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted"
Notwithstanding this positive prohibition slave
ry existed until prospectively abolished when Illi-
nois became State, by law which provided for
the liberation of the slaves when they should ar
rive at a specified age. We know of several
slaves who were held under this law rs late as
lS4O.
These are facts that have come under our own
observation, and one such fact is worth thou
sand assertions to the contrary. The Democrat
should remember that between theory and practice
there is a wide margin. Our Declaration of In
dependence says, I" all men are born free and
equal yet our laws hold in bondage 5000, 900
or more human beings, who according to that
great bill of rights are entitled to "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness:" So with the a1i-
oms quoted by the Democrat, they sound we'll
paper, and right in the principle laid down,
but the writer should know that the Courts of
the U. s., acting under the constitution, have al
ways decided differently in regard to slavery in
the Territories.
The Democrat need only remember that if its
ground is tenablc every slave now in Kansas is
free, will every one be who is taken there be-
fore slavery is legalized by Territorial enactment
This the Democrat will hardly contend for-nor
would it be material if it did, as that matter
would be decided by different tribunal.
As to the insinuations of the Democrat about
South Carolina politics, it had bette. take them to
ITSELF it and all its Nebraska friends are either
ignorantly or wilfuliy working into the hands of
the slavery men. But we do profess to know
something of that peculiar line of policy pursued
by Southern Democrats usually dcnomnated the
South Carolina School and this knowledge is
not derived from the hearsay of Northern aboli-
tionists or Southern fanatics, but from long and
intimate acquaintance with the peculiar insti-
tution' as we'll as with the means used by South
ern politicians to spread and strengthen its power
and influence. We have always opposed and alb
horred slavery as being an unmitigated curse both
to the white and black races, and these sentiments
we have boldly avowed and defended in places
where the abolition Nebraska-p Slavery -Whig-
Democratic Buffalo editor would not have dared
to have spoken word for freedom. We there
fore treat his remarks about South Carolina sym
pathy, with the contempt they deserve. But VIC
warn the friends of freedom not to listen to the
syren song OF those Dougasites who talk of free
dom while their Southern allies fasten slavery on
the soil OF Kansas. They tell good story but
facts transpiring every day, refute any claim it
may have to confidence. They talk about the
shadow but barter away the substance. Kan.as
is no,c a Stare Territory. Nares are held there
'cithom special law. Let the people remember
this and act accordingly.
We shall refer to this matter again.
UI During the past year two hundred and
sixty-nne thousand dollars have been contri-