Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1856-01-10


States.
They had been stripped of all moral authori-
ty, by persistent efforts to procure their lndl-
rect repeal through contradictory enactments'
They had been practically abrogated by the
Legislation attending the organization Of Utah,
New Mexico, and Washington. If any vitali-
ty remained in them, it would have been taken
away, in effect, by the new territorial acts, IN
the form originally proposed to the Senate at
the first session of the last Congress. 1t was
manly and ingenious, as we'll as patriotic and
just, to do this directly and plainly, and thus
relieve the statue-book of an act, which might
be ofpossible future injury, but of no possible
future benefit; and the measure of its repeal
was the final consumation and complete recog-
milton of the principle, that no portion OF the
United States shall undertake, through as
sumption of the powers of the general govern
ment, to dictate the social institutions OF any
other portion.
The scope and effect of the language of re-
peal were not left in doubt. 1t was declared,
in terms, to be ethe true intent and meaning
Of this act not to legislatc slavery into and Ter
ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom,
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free
to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only to the Constl-
tuition of the United States"
The measure could not be withstood upon
its merits alone. 1t was attacked with violence
on the false or delusive pretext that it consti-
tuted breach of faith. Never was objection
more utterly destitute of substantial justifca-
ton. When, before, was it imagined by SEN
sible men that regulative or declarative sta
tute, whether enacted ten or forty years ago,
is irreparable-that an act of Congress is above
the Constitutions If, indeed, there were in
the facts any cause to impute bad faith, it
would attach to those only who have never
ceased, from the time of the enactment Of the
restrictive provision to the present day, to de-
nounce and condemn it who have constantly
refused to complete it by needful supplement
tary legislation who have spared no exertion
to deprive it of moral force; who have them
selves again and again attempted its repeal by
the enactment of incompatible provisions; and
who, by the inevitable re-actionary effect OF
their own violence on the subject, awakened
the country to perception Of the true ;constitu-
tional principle, of leaving the matter involved
to the discretion of the people of the respec-
tive existing or incipient States
1t is not pretended thatthis principle, or any
other, precludes the possibility Of evils in prac'
tice, disturbed as political action liable to bet
by human passions. No form of government
is exempt from Inconvenience but in this
case they are the result of the abuse, and not
of the legitimate exercise, of the powers reserv-
ed or conferred in The organization Of Terri
tory. They are not to be charged to the great
principle of popular sovereignty; on the con-
trary, they disappear before the intelligence
and patriotism of the people, exerting through
the ballot box their peaceful and silent but
irresistible power.
If the friends of the Constitution are to have
another struggle, enemies could not present Il
more acceptable issue than that of State,
whose constitution clearly embraces "republi-
can form of government" being excluded from
the Union because its domestic institutions
may not in all respects comport with the ideas
of what is wise and expedient entertained in
some other State. Fresh from groundless i'm
putations of breach of faith against others,
men will commence the agitation of this new
question with indubitable violation of an ex-
press compact between the independent sover-
eign powers of the United States and of the
republic of Texas, as we'll as of the ole and
equally solemn compacts which assume the
equality ofall the States.
But, deplorable as would be such violation
of compact in itself, and in all its direct con-
sequences; that is the very least of the evils
involved. When sectional agitators shall have
succeeded in forcing on this issue, can their
pretcnsions fail to be met by counter preten-
sions? Will not different States be compelled
respectively to meet extremes with extremes
And, if either extreme carry its point, what
is that so far forth but dissolution of the Un-
ion a.? If a new State, formed from the terri
tory of the United States, be absolutely ex-
cluded from admission therein, that fact of
itself constitutes the disruption of union be-
tween it and the other States. But the pro-
gress of dissolution could not stop there
Would not a sectional decision, producing such
results by majority of votes, either Northern
or Southern, of necessity drive out the oppress-
ed and aggrieved minority, and place in pres
ence of each other two irreconcileable hostile
considerations
1t is necessary to speak thus plainly of pro-
jccts, the offspring of that sectional agitation
now prevailing in some of the States, which
are as impracticable as they are unconstitution-
al, and which, if persevered in, must and will
end calamitously 1t is either disunion and
civil war, or it is mere angry, idle, aimless
disturbance of public peace and tranquility.
Disunion for what? If the passionate rage of
fanaticsm and partisan spirit did not force the
fact upon our attention, it would be difficult to
believe, that any considerable portion of the
people of this enlightened country could have
so surrendered themselves to fanatical deyo-
ton to the supposed interests of the relatively
few Africans in the United States, as totally
to abandon and disregard the interests of the
twenH live millions of Americans, to trample
under foot the injunctions of moral and consti-
tutional obligation, and to engage in plans of