Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1856-12-10


would attain can be accomplished, nor to reflect
that, even if the evil were as great as they deem
it, they have no remedy to apply, and that II
can be only aggravated by their violence ana
unconstitutional action. A question, when IS
one of the most difficult of all the problems OF
social institutions, political economy and states
manship, they treat with unreaSonlng lntemper
ance Of thought and language. Extremes oeget
extremes. Violent attack from the North hnds
its inevitable consequence in the growth OF
spirit of angry defiance at the South. Thus IN
the progress of events we had reached that con-
summation, which the voice of the people has
now 80 pontedly rebuked of the attempt, OF
portion of the States, by q sectional organization
and movement, to usurp the control of the gov
ernment of the United States.
confidently believe that the great body of
those who nconsiderately took this fatal step,
are sincerely attached to the Constitution and
the Union. They would, upon delberation, shrink
with unaffected horror from any conscious act
of disunion or civil war. But they have entered
into path, which leads nowhere, unless it be
to civil war and dsunion, and which has no 9TH
er possible outlet. They have proceeded thus
far in that direction in consequence Of the sue
cessive stages of their progress having consisted
of series of secondary issues; each of which
professed to be confined within constitutional
and peaceful limits, but which attempted in
directly what few men were willing to do direct
w. that is TO act aggressiyey against the consti-
tutional rights of nearly one-half of the thirty
one States.
In the long series of acts of indirect aggres-
sion, the first was the strenuous agitation, by
citizens of the Northern States, in Congress and
out of it, of the question Of negro emancipation
in the Southern States.
The second step in this path of evil consisted
of acts of the people of the northern States, and
| in several instances of their governments, aimed
to facilitate the escape of persons held to service
| in the southern States, and to prevent their ex-
tradition when reclaimed according to law and
| in virtue of express provisions of the Constitu-
tion. To promote this object, legislative enact
ments and other means were adopted 70 take d
way or defeat rights, which the Constitution So
lemnly guaranteed. In order to nullify the then
existing act of Congress concerning the extradi-
ton of fugitives from service, laws were enacted
in many States, forbidding their officers, under
the severest penalties, TO participate in the exc
cution of any act of Congress whatever In this
way that system of harmonious cooperation be-
tween the authorities of the United States and
Of the several States, for the maintenance OF
their common institutions, which existed in the
early years of the Republic was destroyed; con-
ticts of jurisdiction came to be frequent; and
Congress found itself compelled, for the support
of the Constitution, and the vindication OF It's
power, to authorize the appointment OF new Of
ficers charged with the execution OF It's acts as
if they and the officers Of the States were the
ministers, respectively, of foreign governments
in a state of mutual hostility, rather than fellow
magistrates of common country, peacefully
subssting under the protection OF one well con-
sttutsd Union. Thus here, also, aggression was
followed by reaction; aud the attacks upon the
Constitution at this point did but serve to raise
up new barriers for its defence and security.
The third stage Of this unhappy sectional con-
troversy was in connection with the organiZa-
ton Of territorial governments, and the admis-
sion of new States into the Union. When 1t
was proposed to admit the State OF Maine, by
separation of territory from that of Massachu-
setts and the State of Missouri, formed 3 por-
tion of the territory ceded by France to the u
nised States representatives in Congress OBJ
jected to the admission of the latter, unless with
conditions suited to particular views of public
policy. The imposition of such condition was
successfully resisted. But, at the same period,
.ions upon the residue of the territory ceded by
posed of by the adoption of q geographical line
Of limitation.
| In this connection it should not be forgotten
that France, of her own accord resolved, for con-
siderations of the most fsr-sighted sagacity, TO
cede Louisiana to the United States, and that ac-
cessiou was accepted by the United States; the
latter expressly engaged that "the inhabitants oi
the oeded territory shall be Incorporated In the
Union of the United States, and admitted as
soon rs possible, according TO tue principles oi
the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment ol
all the rights, advantages, and immunites OF cit
izens of the United States and in the meantime
they shall be maintained and protected in the
free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and
the religion which they profess that is to say,
while it remains in territorial condition, Its
inhabitants are maintained and protected IN the
free enjoyment of their liberty and property,
with right then TO pass into the condition OF
States on q perfect equality with the original
States.
The enactment, which established the res
trictive geographical line, was acquiesced in
rather than approved by the States of the Union.
1t stood on the statue book, however, for a num-
Der of years; and the people of the respective
States acquiesced in the re-enactment of the
principle as applied to the State Of Texas; and it
was proposed to acquiesee in its further appca-
to the territory acquired by the United States
from Mexico But this proposition was success
fully resisted by the representatives from the
northern States, who, regardless Of the statute
line insisted upon applying restriction to the
new territory generally, whether lying north or
south of it, thereby repeating it as q legislative
compromise, and on the part of the North, per-
sistently violating the compact, if compact there
was.
Thereupon this enactment ceased to have
binding virtue in any sense, whether as respects
the North or the South and so in effect it was
treated on the occasion of the admission OF the
State of California, and the organization of the
Territories of New Mexico, Utah and Washing
ton.
Such was the state of this question, when the
time arrived for the organization of the Terrific
ries of Kansas and Nebraska In the progress
Of constitutional inquiry and reflection, 1t had
now at length come to be seen clearly that Con-
gress does not possess constitutional power to
impose restrictions of this character upon any
present or future State of the Union. In long
series of decisions, on the fullest argument and
after the most deliberate consideration, the Su-
preme Court Of the United States had finally de-
termined this point, in every form under which
the question could arise, whether as affecting
public or private rights-in questions of the pub
lie domain, Of religion, of navigation, and OF SER
vitude
The several States of the Union are, by force Of
the Constitution, co-equal in domestic legislative
power. Congress cannot changea law of domestic
relation in the State of Maine; no more can it in
the State of Missouri. Any statute which pro-
noses to do this is a mere nullity it takes away
no right, it confers none. If it remains on the
statute book unrepealed, it remains there only
as monument of error; and beacon of warn
ing to the legislator and the statesman 10 re-
peal it will be only to remove impertection from
the statutes, without affecting either in the sense