Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-07-15
From the Charleston Mercury.
THE EDGEFIELD ADVERTISER.
NUMBER SIX.

Still II is pcrScverlnSy lnGlInateu tiet we are
upon the verge Of a vortex in which we may soon
be swallowed up with all that We hold dear; and
the place among nations which knew us once, is to
know us no more forever. What and where is this
vortex Is it to be found in Black Republicanism?
The South knows that enemy we'll, and with that
knowledge, feels secure Of her ability to ranquish
its endeavors for evil. Is it to be found in the
powers that be- They are all for US. Is it in
Southern dissensions We were never more united.
Is it in Southern concessions The South stands
firm upon the Georgia platform Of 1852 Is it in
Congressional oppression We have gained ;, tle
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, more explicit
recognition of our rights to fugitive slaves some
lessening of the burden Of tariff exactions-and
we may, without infatuation, expect yet greater
Justice in the future. Or is it in the crushing pres
sure of an outside civilization? Let it suffice to
saw that our labor clothes the world. Where, then
we ask again, and what is this vortex"
as it Congressional oppression? We have
gained the repeal of the Missouri Compromise"
This is the next point relied on by our cotempo-
rary to Justify his contentment with the position
of the South in the Union.
We have heard of such thing in the world
as man gaining loss, and we very much fear
that this is exactly what the South has gained
in gaining the repeal of the Missouri Compro.
mise.
The Missouri Compromise line of $50 30>
| North latitude, left Kansas and Nebraska to the
North, but it gave the South all our Indian
Territory, and others lying South Of this line
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise gave us
chance of getting kansas-one State-but it
also gave the North the chance of getting all the
Indian Territory and all Territories beyond it,
capable of making four States. Now, under the
most favorable circumstances, this game was
against the South The South could gain but
one State, and might lose four; the North could
lose but one State and might gain four. Taking
into consideration the fact, that the colonizing
population of the North, including emigrants
from Europe, is, in its availability, at least four
fold greater than that Of the South-tnc chances
were, most clearly, that the South would lose the
whole Accordingly, we saw that General Shields,
General CaSs, and others from the Free States,
who supported the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise and the enactment Of the kansas-Ne-
braska bill, defended themselves from the impu-
tation of voting to extend slavery, by boldly
affirming before the people that the act was one
Of the best atin-slavery acts of legislation ever
passed by Congress; for that instead of extend.
ing slavery, it would result in taking away from
the South and giving to the North four additional
States. And why was the Missouri Compromise
repealed? Was it, as the Washington Union
maintains, "to assert all abstract right without
regard to the loss or gain of either Section?'
We venture to assert that this was not the great
controlling motive which actuated MIR. Douglas
in bringing it forward, or Messrs. Cass, Shields,
&c., of the Northern Democracy, in supporting
it. The motive avowed was to carry out the
principle of Squatter Sovereignty as contained
in the Compromise of 1852. That principle,
digni6ed as Popplar-Sovereignty," was, in the
Territories that the "inhabitapts of Territory
should, achilst it acas Territorg, have the right
to determine whether slavery should or should
net exist in the Territory before the Territory
became State" This was the principle by which
the South had been swindled out Of California.
A handful of cmigrants from all parts OF the
world, not one half of whom were citizens of the
United States, met together in a suggested vol
untary convention, and framed constitution
precluding slavery from California; and that
constitution, thus adopted, was made ehectual
by Congress in the admission of California as a
State into the Union. 1t was to carry out this
false and agitious principle that the Kansas
Nebraska bill was passed, and the Missouri Com
promise repealed.
When the South proposed that the Missouri
Compromise line should be carried through Cali
fornia, it was rejected by the North. Why, then,
did the statesmen of the North become so very
sensitive to the rights of the South with regard
to Kansas? They have given their answer to
their constituents. ltwas to enforce the doctrine
Of Squatter Sovereignty, under the firm pcrsua.
sion that the benefit would accrue to the North.
1t was thought, in fact, to break down barrier
of limitation to Free Territory.
Now, Squatter Sovereignty was just as uncon.
stitutional as the Missouri Compromise. The
bred Scott case has determined both to have
been and to be now unconstitutional. BY this de-.
cision it has been determined in this case that
the people of the South have right to carry
their slaves into any Territory of the United
States and there the Government of the United
States is bound to protect them as property un-
til the Territory becomes State that the peo.
pie of Territory have no right to determine
gress had no right to prohibit slavery from any
Of our Territories therefore, the Missouri
restriction was void; and that Congress, not
having this right, could not mpart it by act to
Territory which is the creature of Congress
and, therefore, that Sguatter Sovereignty is un.
constitutional and false doctrine.
Although the South had most earnestly con-
tended against this doctrine of Squatter Sover
eighty when it wrested California from us,-Mr
Calhoun affirming that it was worse than the
Wilmot Proviso-yet, by q blindness inconceiva.
BILE, the South was decoyed by partyism into
supporting it in the Kansas-Nebraska act; We
do not question the patriotism of the Southern
members in Congress. They doubtless supposed
that they were doing the best they could for the
South; but we do question the wisdom of the
policy. They consented to repeal of the Mis-
souri, Compromise, when the South had much
to gain by its continuance, and put the rights of
the South upon scramble in population for our
Territories, to be determined hap-hazard by the
first adventurers-a method equally unconstitu.
tional with the Wilmost Proviso and the Mis-.
souri, restriction.
Before the Dred Scott case was determined,
the Government might properly have assumed
that the Squatter Sovereignty feature of the
! Kansas-Nebraska Act was constitutional. But
since this decision, we are at loss to know upon
what principle it is enforced. Mr.. Buchanan de-
livered his Inaugural Address before this dccis.
ion was known. But it was certainly known
long before Gov. Walker went to Kansas. He
asserts that he is instructed by the Administra
ton to carry out the principle of Squatter Sow
ereignty in the Kansas.Nebraska Act. How
true his assertion is, time will develope; but. we
suppose, under his policy right Or wrong, we
can have pretty clear idea of the value to the
South of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
We are to lose Kansas, and thus gain nothing
by the repeal; whilst the Territories south Of
the line it established between the Slave and
Free States will now be open to future contest.
To show how kcenly the Northern mind is
Al. Ill,