Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-08-04
MASTERS AND sLAvEs-RIGHT OF
TRANSIT.

the non-slaveholding States seems to us almost
folly. 1t is like solemnly arguing TO demonstrate
that black is black; white, white Yet, in these
evil times, men have sprung up who reverence
nothing however sacred, and question everything
however plain. Though not pleasant, it is a
duty TO refute their arguments and expose their
fallacies
That sovereign State has the power and the
right to declare that slavery shall not exist with
Such law, when adopted, is adopted for local
purposes, and is designed solely for the regulation
and government Of its own citizens 1t does not
contemplate any infringement of the rights of
hospitality or any violation Of that comfy which
IS binding on alien nations even, and as binding
rs any part of the international code. Indeed,
this comfy is of the very Of international
law--it is the very end and object of it.
But il is not on the mere ground Of comfy that
we would rest the right of a master to transit
for himself and property through non-slave-
holding State.
When the Constitution was formed, nearly all,
fnot all, Of the States were slaveholding States.
True, even at that early day, the Southern States,
better adapted than the Others by SOIL climate and
productions, to slavery, receiving and absorb
ing the slaves from the more northern States. We
thus briefly advert to this TO show that the South
ern States would never have consented to form
union with the Northern States had the latter
then claimed the power to manumit slaves in
transitu with their masters, through their terri
tory. 1t not possible to tell which Of the
States would become free States. 1t was impos-
sible to tell how much territory would be added
to the United States and to make even a coniec-
tural map of the new empire. To have decided
against this right Of transit, would have been
equivalent to saying to ownersJf slaves, who, in
order to emigrate with their property, would be
compelled to pass through free States, "You shall
not emgrate." We say it would have been
equivalent to laying an embargo on their emgrat-
ing 1t would be so now. The Southern States
would never have entered the Union on such
terms.
But again. The preamble to the Federal Con-
stitution declares that to g form more perfect
union, establish justice (and) insure domestic
tranquility" were three of the main objects of
the Constitution Would these objects be pro-
NOTED by denying to Southern men the right of
transit mot residence) with their slaves through
the -slaveholding States Would il make the
Union more perfect" Would il consist with Gus
tice, "and insure domestic tranquility" Norman
can say SO The denial of this right has already
menaced us with dissolution of the Union, done
glaring injustice, and fearfully disturbed " do
mestic tranquility" II has raised up mobs, and
led to bloodshed. 1t has arrayed State against
State, and section against section. 1t has violated
comfy, and more than that, the main objects o
the Constitution.
Again, says the Constitution: "The citizen.
of each State shall be entitled to all the privilege:
and immunities of citizens in the several States
From this clause also the right of transit i.
deducible.
We perceive that many of our contemporaries
are filling their columns with all the decisions OF
the courts which have any bearing on this sub
ject They show their industry in collating, and
their legal acumen in reconciling, these decisions
For our part we would not give a brass 6rthing
for all the decisions of the courts in regard TO
vital constitutional right like this. Decisions are
thhSf pihaibE VI hot bhuinRs II DliuIRy anu
against the right, we will have to acknowledge
them authorities. Now, we would never ac-
knowledge them any more than we would nc.
knowledge decision Of court-even the Su-
preme Court--that Congress may abolish slavery
in the States If the courts decide for the right
when brought before them, well and so good
While ii gives US high opinion of the Judge
AT does mt n all at ;rta rf hs
right
To illustrate: The STAKEHOLDER has under the
Constitution and by comfy (cumulative) the
right of transit with slaves through Ohio Ohio
denies it, and passes law saying that his slaves
shall be free directly they breathe her air. The
matter is brought before the courts. They de
eide that Ohio had a right to pass the law anC
free the slave while mot resident, butt only IL
iranstu. Now, we say that would NOR,
respect such decision than we would decision
that Congress has the right to abolish slavery il
the States.
We are not accustomed to speak lightly of tn,
Union, for we value its blessings too highly; but
when it becomes fixed and settled thing, thai
shareholders, denied the plain rights of citizenship
cannot travel with their property through non.
slaveholding State, then we say that the Union
ought 10 be dissolved.
The Constitution gives equal rights TO the peo
pie Of all the States The territory of the United
States Is open to all. All have the right to take
their property with them into such territory
Should non-siaveholding State intervene be
tween the point from which the emigrant is NOV
ing and the point TO which he is removing, he
has the right--the plain, indisputable right-to
carry his property with him, whether such prop
erty consist Of horses, wooden nutmegs, hocks
and herds, or slaves Should any State decree
that borse-ownership shall be abolished within lie
borders, then any emigrant could, by parity Of
reasoning, carry his horses through such State
to his point Of destination, and he would be pro.
tected by the Constitution in so doing. Should
either the horsepower or the slave-owner, under
such circumstances, take up his residence in such
State, then indeed would he lose his property
II is high time that the people Of the NORTH
should understand this thing. IL is too much
tlnc 20 Al.