The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-04-26


the consideration of the people, either practical or legal
remedy When pressed the question, the most
anatiea will admit that citizens of free State they
have legal right 10 interfere with the institution that 1t
the clear constitutional right OF each State to have IL
will they claim that the States have failed TO
ercisa this right When the constitution adopted
all the States, one embraced slavery. Now have
fifteen slave and teen free States Connecticut and Penn
sylvana have abolished it. Virginia and Maryland have
retained The people of the latter States have proper
right complain against the action of those OF the former
gice Nor will il do say that constant and
bitter denuncaon by the people Of State against tho
institutions of another is inerierence barren 10
practical results IL is still fruitful Of illieeing; the
tain tendency OF which is TO ALLEVIATE the feelings OF tho
people of the several States and at the me defeat
the end in view Were the people OF Pennsyyan TO in
dulge in unknd criticisms Of your institutions am sure
the only tendency would be to force you TO cherish them
the closely Such has been the only effect Of polt
cal abolitionism When southern men, with Clay at their
head started the Colonization Society, what did the abo
| tionists do? Did they second the movement By
means. Nothing would satisfy them but immediate and
unconditional emancipation Their lecturers commenced
to haangue the people, and their colporteurs sent
into all parts of the Union with nllammatory docu-
ments to accomplish this eud. The consequence was
that the southern people became alarmed and receded
from the position they had taken. The opportunities Of
the slaves restricted their education and the
southern people constrained adhere TO their constitutional
right TO have the institution with increased tenacty So
much for the folly Of interfering without proper right 10
do But suppose constitutional obstacle inervened
that the South should agree to emancpate the slaves
stated period, provided they We're taken away or main
taned what could be done2 Who would employ, elohe
and feed these helpless beings How many would Mass-
chusetts take How many would Ohio take And how
many would Pennsylvania and Connecticut take2 Not
one But if they could be brought North in what par
tcuar will their condition be improved viii they live
better Will they have better ideas of civilization and
Christianity VIII they be elevated in the scale OF moral
being? The to all these questions is a
extent furnished in the pitiable condition of the free
blacks True, there those who would be willing to
give the negro equal social and political condition with
the Anglo-Saxon but am not one Of those, and have
patience to discuss this offensive idea What hen
should those abolitionists do Why, mind their
business That is generally profitable Many men get rich
in that way They not accountable in any way for the
wrongs slavery Norshoud people England for
get that they had agency in propagatng the institution.
Their delegates in the that made the
suton consented to the continuance of the slave
Prior that time this disgrscefl traffic had been egsated
against by States of Virginia Maryland and North Caro-
lima All the New England States voted for the clause
tnung the slave trade up to 1905 whilst Virginia and
Delaware voted aganstt this trade that first propa
gated the institution aud regulated s growth For the
increase during that long PERIOD the New England States
largely responsible and this fact should at least
strain them to charitable view Of this vexed question.
The extent of the institution be measured by the
territory which may spread by the number OF
beings in bondage. Were citizen OF Kansas should
against slavery; but in doing So would not feel
that essening the numter Of slaves doing them
special kindness Nor would the restoration of the
ern slaves to the condition ancestors in Africa bet
their condition The change would reduce them to the
lowest OF barbarsm and the act would be outrage
upon humanity But my object is only 10 suggest these
ideas elaborate them have doctrine to pre-
this point Of the subject only wish those who
are so constantly exercised the question point out
their remedy to tell what be done, Nor would
dissolution of the Union free the slaves The southern
States would go together and of course retain the nstu
ton SO long it might be the pleasure of the people
The fugve-slave law is of the favore boobies Of
the republican party and desire to call your attention
the inevitable consequences Of their doctrines for
ment This question Of obeying dsobeying the
ter of the constitution, and the republicans abolition
sts, in the MAN, favor resistance The constitution de-
clares that no person held TO service labor in State
under the laws thereof escaping into another, shall in
consequence Of any law regulation therein be dis
charged from such service labor but shall be delivered
up claim Of the party TO whom such service or labor
may be due These very explicit terms They fur
nsh distinct guarantee the citizens Of the slavehod-
ing States that the fugitive should be returned and made
it the clear duty of Congress devise to carry out
the condition The Union the offspring Of the consu-
ton The two nseparable. The former could not
vive the destruction of the latter Nor the consu
ton maintained in part and disregarded in part Ii
must be respected whole Those who resist the letter
Of any part Of the constitution virtually repudate the
whole and those who do this rebel against the Union
and doing this, reckless of the true welfare Of
both races and Of mankind generally Those who
claim against the law with much yehemence should
member that it Ia the creature of the constitution and
whilst II may not be perfect il Is not probable that will
do more than return all the fugifves II to do less
Ii would not be what the constitution intended The law
Of 7e3 though very similar to that now In existence
cited but little resistance at the time IL passed the Sem
without division, and received as out Of Sc votes in
House Representatives Massachusetts, cast six votes
for il and against it But other counsels prevail
every wbo says that this part Of the constitution
must be carried out is denounced as "negrs-drver"
But must speak quesUon OF
tories This has long been topic Of angry controversy in
Congress The question regulated in what was known
Northwestern Territory BY the ordinance Of 1884,
kind of compact between the people Of the Territory the
State of virgina and the United States under the first
coufederaey In the ousans Territory Il disposed Of
by the adoption of what Is fsmilary known the Mis-
sour Compromse-an act OF Congress declaring that
slavery should not extend north OF the parallel Of &c deg
30 min When Texas acquired the question dis
posed Of in way The acquisition OF terri
tory from Mexico the close Of the war; presented the
question again An effort made TO dispose Of the
roversy by extending the Missouri line TO the Pacific ocean,
but the proposition rejected and mainly by the
OF the North The necessity for other mode Of ad
ustment thus presented The party complaining
Of the Nebraska law contributed TO the creation Of
this necessity by their hostility the Missouri line There
seemed TO be alternative left but TO refer the whole
question the people Of the Territories Clay Cas Web
ser and others recognised this policy in the compromise
of 1850, and IL Is for this principle that tho
democratic party eontending-the broad doc
triue of non-inerventou by Congress and the right
of the people in the Territories to decide the question
for themselves the principles Of sefgovernment
As candidate before the people | maintained this
doctrine; / thought II sound In theory, and that 1t
could not fail in practice. | think still. With
stopping inquire how far Congress might legally
interfere convinced that Il wise for Congress to
forbear The principle of nonntcrvention, or popular
sovereignty In the Territories is In beautiful harmony
with whole republican system. The Inherent right Of
selfgoverrmen and the capacity to exercise that right
not determined by geographical lines man Is none
the less competent because he resides IN Territory nor
are his reserved rights under the constitution less Many
OF your nechbors and mine have gone TO the Territories
Are they less qualified Judge Of their interests than
when they were citizens OF Connecticut and Pennsylvania
Certainly mott Is IL reasonable in to insist the right
10 selec and regulate the domestic institutions under