The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-09-18
ment, without which Liberty itself would be in

JURISDICTION IN the FeQeral government, eltner
in its legislative or judicial capacity, to inter
fere with Slavery in the States, whether to abol-
ish, modify, or uphold the system, leads to the
widest latitudinarianism, and, if acted on,
it would abolish every vestige of State indie
pendence and State sovereignty. The aboli-
tion of Slavery, even, would be dearly pur-
chased at the price of our system of Confede-
rated Government" "The Federal
principle is as essential to the maintenance of
Liberty as the habeas corpus and the jury
trial."
Again, in your comments upon the clause
OF the Constitution before cited, you say
Now, if this clause is good for anything, it
secures to the several States the absolute con-
troll of their domestic affairs, Slavery as well
as the rest, and to trample on it. in the name
OF Freedom, is to set an example to tyrants
fatal to Freedom itself. To depart from it is
to establish system of consolidation, which,
In this immense country, would be more incon-
sistent with individual freedom than that which
makes all France subject to the tyrant who
has possession of Paris"
Well, sir, this is open, bold, frank, manly,
consistent. 1t is, moreover, a philosophical and
correct delineation of the Hypothesis" for
which you, in common with the Republican
party, contend. You have reached the bottom
with your sounding line. This is the legiti.
mate result, the inevitable sequence, of that
entire school of constitutional exposition, that
theory of Federative Government and State
Rights, which denies to the National Govern
ment the power of suppressing all the slavery
that exists in the nation; in other words, flor
this is the whole of it,) the power of pro-
tecting all its citizens or subjects from enslave
ment; for every permanent inhabitant is a
citizen, in the sense of owing allegiance, and
OF having consequent right to protection, for
allegiance and protection are correlatives, and
must go together. Every citizen of State is
also citizen of the United States, owes ITS Gov
eminent allegiance, and has a claim upon its
protection.
Now, look, my dear sir, at your own state.
ment of your own doctrine, and consider
whether you do yourself believe it. You doubt
less think you do. But are you quite certain
that you do? Just look at it. See what it
includes.
l. There can be no "vestige of State indie
pendence and State sovereignty" without the
right to enslave the citizens of the State and of
the United States DO you believe that? Can
you believe it? From whence was the right
derived? What are the evidences of its exist
ence? Have 1 erred in using the word "right,"
instead of "power?" Assuredly you could not
have been contending for a State "power"
you could not have contended for such poaoer
as essential to the security of Liberty.
And how does it appear that Estate indie
pendence" and estate sovereignty" require,
for their existence or security the right or the
power of enslaving the People of the State
What is the State? What can it be- but the
People of whom the State is composed? Take
away the People, or make chattels personal of
them, and what becomes of "the State?" Or
what can be meant by the phrases Estate in
dependence" and estate sovereignty" when
the People who compose the State, (if there
be any) so far from having any "independ-
ence," or sovereignty" have no rights, no
volition, no selfdirection at all? Or does
State independence" and Estate sovereign
ty" mean only the independence and the
sovereignty" of the shareholders This, we
know, as the Southern meaning of the phrases.
But the National Era cannot have adopted
those defnitionsl Or, if it had, the Era could
not maintain that such independence" and
sovereignty" were essential to the security of
Liberty
2. But look further. The estate independ-
ence" and estate sovereignty" that cannot
exist without the power of enslaving the citi-
zens, is so priceless and precious, that it ought
not to be given up, even to secure the aboli-
ton of Slavery In other words, it would not
be so bad to have Slavery continued, as it
would be to have the States deprived of that
independence" and sovereignty" which in
clude the power of human enslavementl This
seems perplexing. If that power be 80 pre-.
cious and important, it is not easy to see why
Slavery should be abolished at all. "Powers I"
are of no value that are never to be exercised
And if Slavery should be so abolished as to put
1t out of the "power" of the States to re-estab-
lish it, then the independence" and "sover-
eighty" Of the States would be left without any
foundation. So that Governor McDufie had
some good reason for saying that "Savery is
the corner stone of our Republican edifce i"
1t must be so, think, if State sovereignty :"
and independence" include the power to
maintain Slavery.
B. And it is implied, in all this, that the
power to establish and maintain Slavery is, to
say the least as sacred as the power to secure
Freedom. The "power" "to abolish, modify,
or uphold" the system, rests upon the same
basis, unless, indeed, the "power" to uphold
be more necessary than the power to abolish.
For,
A. You say that the "Federal principle"
described by you, is "as essential to the main
tenance of Liberty as the hdbeas corpus and
the jury trial that is, the "power" of the
States to maintain Slavery is thus essential to
the maintenance of Liberty! Or thus, the
doctrine that denies the power of the States to
establish and maintain Slavery, is a doctrine
that denies, by implication, the power of the
States to maintain Freedom! And this is but
another expression of the common notion that
the right'to Liberty is derived from the will of
the reigning sovereign Government, and exists
only during its good pleasure. "That is prop
erty," said Henry Clay, (which the law makes
property" and he was speaking of property in
human beings. Mr.. Clay was right, if it be any
derogation of Estate sovereignty and State in
dependence" to deny its power to chattelize
human beings.
5. Thus much in respect to State powers.
When you come to speak of National powers,
and the National Government, another feature
of Government presents itself. If the Federal
| Government should protect its citizens from
chattel Slavery, which the independent sover-
eign States have "power" to infict upon them,
the Federal Government would usurp unwar-
rantable "power," despotic power, " unlimited
power" as lis sometimes called-a power sub.
versive of State independence, and therefore
fatal to Freedom This distinction between
State powers and National powers.of Govern
ment arises, l suppose, from the notion that
the State Governments are the original, indie
pendent, sovereign Governments, and that the
National Government, not being derived from
" the people of the United States" las is affirm
ed in the Constitution is derived only from the
States, and is q subordinate Government, in the
hands of the kind of State sovereignty and in
dependence which embraces the power of en-.
Shaving human beings Just as is nOw witnessed!
Gather up, now, into one view the sum total
of this "hypothesis" of the State and National
Governments, and what have we? 1t amounts,
in one word, to just this Q.) The State Gov
erpments in virtue of their original, underived