Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-07-03
Mr.. Buchanan.

vared between the North and Souih,ls the right
Of the STAKEHOLDER to carry with him, and use as
nro,erty. his slave. without molesta,ion, charge
or penalty. in any of the States where slavery Il
nofforhdden by the local law-and IN any OF the
Territories, where no local Law can properly for.
bid il The right of such possession Il use within
tho slave States is not sought to be disturbed at
this time and need hot therefore be defended. -
The right of transt for the master with his slaves
through free States has not yet been definitely
ao,ermined but is so clearly deriyable from the
General principles of international law, indepen-
IDENTIFY of the more liberal comfy which results
from the conditions and objects Of our Federal
Union, that we cannot permit ourselves to doubt
its ultimate adjudication on a basis satisfactory
to the South. The great practical question Of
the day. as we have minated. relates 10 the
Territories Upon its determination depends
the decision whether not the States of ihe
Union are equal in constitutional rights aud
nriyileges-whether the citizens of the Southern
States stand on platform of con -ttuiional equal
;tv with the citizens Of the North ern States. II
the citizen of Southern State can go into any
Territory belonging to the Union. with whatsoev-
or property he possesses, with precisely the same
immunites and protection that the citizen any
Northern State may 60 there, with whatsoever
property he possesses-then is there such thing
as practical State equality, and practical popu.
lar equality. the great sub strata of our repub-
can government. Whoever, in good fifth. seeks
to enforce and establish this great doctrine may
be regarded as sound, national and worthy the
confidence of the Sonth:--whoever seeks 10
throw difficulties and distractions in the
way of its establishment cannot but be re-
earded as sectional in his feelings and
unworthy the confidence of the South
These positions will scarcely be denied on this
side of thu Union. We propose very briefly to
try Mr.. Buchanan's soundnsss by this test. That
he is hostile abstractly to slavery we know full
we'll, from his having publicly proclaimed that he
regarded il "a great poliiioaa great moral evil
and thanked God that his lot had been cast in
free state IA his speech the annexation of
Texas too, be declared that he felt "a strong re-
pugnance" by any act of his, ITO extend tho linn
its of the Union over slavcbolding Terrific
ry." and tina, he had overcome his scroples only
by satisfying himself tina, the annexation of Tex
rs would be the meansof limiting mot eniurgipg
the dominion of slavery" With preposessions
and convictions thus strong and fixed. he would he
a hopeful man indeed who would expect from Mr.
Buchanan any thing that might tend to advance
he interests of slavery, that not absolutely
specifically enjoned upon him by his understan
ding Of the obligations of the constitution and the
laws. Let us enquire then what his understand
Al Il -. II.
cry. In his speech to the Democrats of Wash
ington city in ls45, which we have heretofore
copied at large. he said in reference to what was
then the Territory of California,,hat slavery was
forbidden there by tho Mexican law, and "coud
only be established by some competent Legisla
tive authority" He did not believe that the con
sttution of the United States, which in being ex-
tended over California necessarily abragated all
other authority and law, carried with it pro-
lection to all the institutions of the United States,
and equality Of right to all the citizens of
1 he United States. California had be-
come the common property Of all the
States, but while the Connecticut man could
GO there with whatever property he posses
sed, Mr.. Buchanan did not believe the
citizen of Virginia was entitled to the same priv
ilege He would not admit that the federal con
stitution, which gave the Yankee the right to
carry his tools, his engines and all his means of
labor and subsistence there. gave the Southern
err the right to take his slaves there. lie thought
that slavery was municipal, statutory and local,
and could only exist by virtue of .postive ennct
ments" He thought the stakeholder was exolu
ded until the non stakeholder, who had gone
there, might permit him to enter. So much for
Mr.. Buchanan's opinions of the equality of the
States in Territory where slavery had not been
established by law. How is it when the contra
ry is the case and the fate of a Territory. where
slavery has existed and does exist is to be deter
mined! Suppose. for example,t the United States
should acquire the island of Cuba Mr.. Buohan
an does not hold that slavery would be abolished
there by the extension Of the U. S. Constitution
over what would be the Territory of Cubo nor
does he assert that the Congress OF the United
States would have the power to abolish it--but h,
holds that the people of Cuba, while it should b,
q Territory, would have the power: for in hi
letter of acceptance he lays it down, as rrinci
pie established by the Kansas bill that "the peo
pie offs Territory, like those Of State, shall de
eide for themselves whether slavery shall o
shall not exist within its limits" If, therefore
Cuba should be acquired as Territory of tn
Union, although the Shareholders there woul
not. by the act lose their property, and althoug
citizens Of the South might 60 thiiher with the
slaves. yet Mr.. Buchanan maintains that If b
snirruption from the Northern States maiorit
adverse to slavery should get possession of Il
Territory Of Cuba, they would have the right
decide for themselves whether slavery shs
or shall not exist within its limits"
TO sum up briefly: Mr.. Buchanan believes slav
ry to be great politica,a great moral evil
.uonld feal treat rannDnance to the oxfen sion