Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1856-10-18

with each other on the highway; and frof
their own stories you learn that the subjec
matter of the controversy is a piece Of pro
perty-a bank note or anything else-whicl
is owned and possessed by the one ,and which
the other desired to take away. Now, in
dependent of all positive proof, which of thu
two, in the nature of the case, was to be as
sailed-he who had the thing, Or he wht
had it not +? The possessor had only to re
main at peace in order to continue in quiet
possession. The assailant had to be him
who had not The possession, and who desired
to take it away from him who lawfully held
! it. Well, now, 50 it is with the North and
the South.
The South has property in slaves-a pro-
perty known TO the laws, possession which
is fortified by quadruple tier of laws-fed-
eral constitution and federal statutes, State
constitutions and State statutes-and it has
rights belonging 70 that property equally re-
cognized and fortified and that property
and those rights the North desires to abolish,
to take away and to destroy. The South
desires TO be let alonc-to be left in quiet,
lawful possession; and the North is bent
upon disturbing and destroying the quiet
possessions and enjoyment of that property
Which, n the nature OF the case, is bound
to be the assailant? He whose very inter-
est and policy is peace, or the other, who
has no other mode of success but aggression?
What among wise and just men ought to be
the verdict? Why, that The man with the
bank note ought 10 be allowed safely to
walk the highway with it in his pocket, and
his lawful property ought hot 10 tempt any
one TO assail him fot its possession. (Gheers)
And Che South ought to be let alone and
no power ought, without law and against
Law. 10 attempt 70 abolish aad destroy the
lie property in slaves. Aud tie fact proves
pself, t,la. the party Which would abolish
and destroy the property is necessarily the
party Nbied must assail the party which pos
seSses 1t, Attempt not 10 abolish the legal
rights and possessions, aad there will be no
war. Bu5 thcre i, war. and the subject of
controversy is property which is lawful in
the one aud which the other would destroy
and The war itseif, Tor such cause, shows
who Is the assaillnt. So stands the case rs
TO who is ~ the wrong. You need not tell
me then, who voted for the Missouri Com
l.
this about it. that the Missouri restriction
was tue frst proposition made that slave pro-
perty should not be enjoyed; that the Cont
promise was, that it should not apply 10 tue
State OF Missouri in particular, but that the
estrietion should apply to all territory North
CT Tie line $3.50, without an equivalent
South of that line; that the restriction which
assaiied the rights of property without COM
pensation was no compromise; that there
was no constitutional power to press it, and
that It's repeal restores the Constitution as
tie true compact between the parties
(Cheers.)
/ know, moreover, Mr.. President, that
demonism is complaining, hgpocritically,
that the peaceful rights of property, and the
peaceful settlements Of the people upon the
public lands of Kansas are assailed-a Ter
litory not yet a sovereignty, but a mere
creature OF sovereignty, with no other guar
apteo Of government than an organic act Of
Congress. While they complain that bor-
der rufiars are assailing persons aud prop
crty in Kansas, black republican ruf6ans are
assailing persons and property every day
and every hour, within the sacred limits of
the sovereign State of Virginia, all along a
line of nine hundred miles Of lfer boundary
and frontier. Virginia was sovereign before
the Union began-she is one Of the old
Thirteen original States, who since inaepen-
dence, have been the creators of sovereign
ties who created sovereigutes TO be equal
not to be superior 10 themselves. She asks
only for equality out of her limits, only for
peace within lier limits Enthusiastic
cheers.) She has every guarantee of orig
inal right, of sovereignty, Of constitution,
and of laws and yet black power without
her limits, assumes to say, and does say, and
persists in saying, that slave property shall
not be peaccably and safely enjoyed within
the limits which she reserved from her orig
inal vast proportions-tlia the constitution
aud laws shall not reign anywhere in respect
to those rights on the subject of slavery,
You might rs well own thousand dollars
floating on a chip On the Ohio river, as to
own a slave worth thousand dollars ON the
banks of that stream on tie limits of Vir-
GINA is this to be borne much longer 3
II Kansas may complain Of her wrongs, may
Virginia not still more complain? If sym
pathy is reused for rights in the Territory,
may we not be pardoned for having sympa-
thies for our own rights in State en-
thusiastc chcers.)
Now what is the issue-the alternative
With civil war raging in Kansas about sla-
very and it, rights; with Black Republi-
can mob seiziug all tie powers OF the SOW
ereign State OF California, and hanging ard
furnishing ycsceable citizens, and inprisorl-
inc Supreme JUDGES; with incendiary rev
olution aNer1pted in the popular branch Of
Congress-, aud for time, aye, for session OF
Cougfea4 sdeeass2ui, aad within three votes
Of being finally successful; with Tie black
knight with yizor down, standing astride
the limits Of Virginia, and forbiddng and
preventing the reign of law tor the protec-
ton Of property and for safety in our limits.
In thi, stare Of things, with these magazines
ready to explode with these burning plough
shares under our feet, whilst the strength OF
Fillmore is nothing, whilst the old Wing
party is dissolved, whilst bat two antagonisms
are left, when the whole issue is slavery OF
abolition, Fremont Or Buchanan, Democrac,
or denronism-tell me, whether the issues
are not terrible, for sheer sectionalism to real
a black flag in sixteen States of the Union
only, where there is a numerical majority OIL
y nnonle without tie or association with tb.