The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1856-12-10
NUMBER 39..

ieSiSiutioH IeCei'Cu Ills unal shape, anQ was &
passed by compromise of the conflicting
opinions or sentiment Of the members OF
Congress. But if it had moral authority
over mans consciences, to whom did this
authority attach {. Not to those of the,
North, who had repeatedly refused to con-
firm it by extension, and who had zeal
olsly striven to establish other and in.
compatible regulations. upon the subject.
And if, as it thus appears, the supposed : !,
compact had no obligatory force as to the :, ,
North, of course 1t could not have had :
any as to the South, for all such compacts
must be mutual and of reciprocal obliga-
ton. i''''
1t has not unfrequently happened that .
aw-givers, with undue estimation, of the
value of the law they give, or m the view !
of imparting to it peculiar strength, make
Iit perpetual in, terms, but they cannot thus !,
bind the conscience, the. judgment, and .
the will of those who may succeed them,
invested with similar responsibilities, and :
clothed with equal authority. More care
fnl investigation may prove the law to be =
unsound in principle. Experience may
show. it to be imperfect in detail, and i'm = :
practicable in execution, And then both.
reason and right combine not merely to-.
Justify, but to require its repeal. ~ sAn5 -
The Constitution, supreme as it is over
all the Departments of the government, =
legislative, executive and judicial, is open
to amC ndment by its very terms; and Con-.
grtss or the States may, in their discfe:
ton, propose amendment to it, solemn
compact though it in truth is, between the
sovereign States of the Union. In the
pres Mt instance, a political enactment,
which had ceased to have legal power or
authority of any kind was repealed The
position assumed, that Congress had no.
moral right to enact such repeal, wasa
strange enough, and singularly SO IN View
of the fact. that the argument came from
those who openly refused obedience toq
existing laws of the land, having the
same popular designation and quality as
compromise acts-nay, more, who unequiv&f
ocally disregarded and condemned the
most positive aud obligatory injunctfonss
Of the Constitution itself, and sought, by
every means within their reach, to de-.
prive q portion of their fellow-citizens OF
the eqaaf enjoyment Of those rights and
privileges guaranteed alike to all by the
! fundamental compact of our Union a9 q
This argument against the repeal of the
statute line iii question, was accompanied
by another of congenlal character, and
| equally with the former destitute of foun-n
Gation in reason and truth It was inn
puted that the measure originated in the
conception of extending the limits of slave7
labor beyond those previously assigned to-
| it, and that such was its natural as wen as
intended effect; and these base!ess ass
snmptions were made in the northern
/ States, the ground of unceasirg assault
upon constitutional right. a'is fe7s.ys
/ The repeal in terms of a statute, which
was already obsolete, and also null for
unconstitutionality, could have no fnflu2
cnce to obstruct or to promote the prop
agation of conflicting views of political
or social institutions. When the act orr
ganizing the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska was passed, the inherent effect
upon that portion of the public domain
thus opened to legal settlement, was 10
admit settlers from all the States Of tho
Union alike, each with his convictions of
! public policy and private interest, there to-
found in their discretion, subject TO such
] limitations as the Constitution aud acts Of
! Congress might prescribe, new States
! hereafter TO be admitted into the Union.
1t was free field open alike to all, wheths
er the statute line of assumed restriction
were repealed or not. That repeal did
not open to free competition of the idie
verse opinions aud domestic institutions.
Il field, which, without such repeal would
have been closed against thcm; il found
that field of competition already opened.
in fact and in law All the repealdi
was to relieve the statnte-book of an soas
|jectionable enactment, 'uneors itu.ional 10
effect, and Injurious in telmsl to- a. large
portion os the States. q 2 sdl 70 sassg
Is it the fact, that, in all the unsettled
regions of the United States, if emigra:
ion be left free to act in. this respect for
itself, without legal prohibitions on either
side, siave-labor will spontaneously GO
Everywhere, in preference to free labor!
Is it a fact that the peculiar domestic in.
s;i,ciions uf the southern States possess
relatively SO mueh Of vigor, that, where.
,oevcr all avenue is freely epen to all the
verdi they viii penetrate TO the exclusion
ii those of the northern States?, Isit
,he fact, that the former enjoy, eomr ared
Nita TIE Latter, such irresistiblys superior
vitality, independent of climate, soil, and
all other accidental circumstances, as to
be able TO produce the supposed result, in
spite of The assumed moral aud natural
" obstacles to its accomplishment, and of
the more numerous population of the
northern States e Is, ya.ra ed.
The argument Of those who advocate
the enactment of new laws of restrit ten,
and condemn the repeal of old ones, in ef-
feet AYERS that their part cular views Of
! government have no self-extending or self
sustaining lower of tleirown and will go.