The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-11-19
From the Lawrence (Kansas) Republican.
HAVE WE THE RIGHT TO ABOLISH SLAVE
RY IN KANSAS?

The dogma that the people of Kansas have
no right, by their Territorial Legislature, to
prohibit the existence of human Slavery in this
Territory, but must allow it to remain here
until the adoption of State Constitution, de.
serves a little more attention than has hitherto
been bestowed upon it. If it be true that we
have no power in our Territorial capacity TO
prohibit Slavery, then indeed are we bound
hand and foot, and the PROJECT for Freedom is
gloomy enough; but if it be not true, then has
our Legislature elect duty to perform in re.
gard to this matter, not less urgent than wei.
come-no less duty than that Of "proclaim.
ing Liberty throughout all the land, and to all
the inhabitants thereof"
1t may as we'll be remarked here. that if the
doctrine recently promulgated by President
Buchanan, that Slavery exists in Kansas
under the Consultation" be true, then is the
prohibition Of StGcery impossible, either aohiZe
a Territory or aoben zoe come TO be a State 7
The Constitution of the United States is the
supreme law of the land-no more powerful in
Territory than in a State-and if Slavery
exists under that Constitution in the Territory
of Kansas, it will exist under that same Consti-
tuition in the State of Kansas. What the Con.
stitution makes property in Territory, is
equally property in State. There is no
avoiding this conclusion without detractiup
from the supremacy of the Constitution. Ell
Their Slavery exists nO1ohere under the Consti-
tuition, or it exists eUeryaOhere.
To adopt Mr.. Buchanan's theory, therefore.
would be to preclude all discussion of the ones.
ton, in the start, and we accordingly dismiss
that theory.
The power of the people of the Territories 10
tolerate or prohibit Slavery in their midst. and
while in their Territorial condition, was the
very gist and substance of that much Wanted
Popular Sovereignty" wherewith the popular
mind of the North was sought to be appeased
for the passage of the Kansas. Nebraska bill.
The agitation of Slavery was to be transferred
from Congress TO the people of the Territories
This was the burden of Gen. Casss celebrated
Nicholson letter, even as early as l841. In
that letter, after asserting that Congress should
exercise over the Territories only so much au-
thority as may be necessary for the creation of
"proper Governments" and providing for
their ultimate admission into the Union" he
says, "leaviDg, an the mean time, to the people
inhabiting them, TO regulate their own concerns
in their own soay," which, he goes on to add,
"they are just as capable of doing as the pe0-
pie Of the STATES" Mr.. Cass is here speaking
expressly with reference to the relation of mas
ter and slave, and he Immediately passes on in
his argument to say, that if Congress can regu-
late or annlnllate tnat relation, so also can 1t
that of husband and wife, parent and child, &C.;
and he sums up by saying, "Briefy, then, l
am opposed to the exercise of any Jurisdiction
by Congress over this matter, Slavery and l
am in favor of leaving to the people of any Ter
ritory which may be hereafter acquired, The
right to regulate it Slaueryl for themselves,
under the general principles of the Constitu-
ton. Because, let" &c. The expression, " Ter
ritory which may be hereafter acquired" was
used because bis letter was written with special
reference to the Territory which it was propos.
ed to acquire from Mexico, and because the
Missouri prohibition, whose rightfulness or
constitutionality no man then dared to deny,
was an efectual guarantee for Freedom in the
then unorganized Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska.
There is nothing in this language of the
present Secretary of State that favors, in the
least, the idea that all the power the people of
Territory have over the subject of Slavery is
10 sit meekly STILL and see shareholders bring
in their slaves-the corrupt institution gradu-
ally fortify and strengthen itself-and then,
finally, after Slavery has become firmly fixed
and established, and has acquired command.
ing power and influence, get rid of it, in the
formation of State Constitution, If they can.
On the contrary, the doctrine directly and