The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-12-26

being recognized by the Constitution of the
United States, as we'll as originally by all the
old thirteen States, we have never doubted
that the emancipation OF slaves in those
States where it previously existed, by an ar
bitrary act of the legislature, was gross vi
olation of the rights of property
Again it says:
"The emancipation of the slaves Of the
northern States was then, as previously stat
ed, gross Outrage on the rights of proper
ty, inasmuch as it was not voluntary relin-
punishment on the part of the owners. TWAS
an act of coercive legislation"
The simple doctrine here announced by the
organ of the majority of the Democratic par
ty is, that no State has right to abolish
Slavery. Such act of abolition is here de-
nounced as "a gross violation Of the rights Of
as Can act of coercive legislation"
In another part of the article, it is declared
that laws prohibiting the introduction of
slaves into the free States SIS a gratuitous IN
suit"
The doctrine here announced, may seem
:new and startling" doctrine, but it is no
more "new and startling" than was the re-
peal of the Missouri Compromise by Con-
gress, and the establishment of the doctrine
of Squatter Sovereignty, few years ago.
Nor is this doctrine more "new and start
ling" than the decision of the Supreme Court,
wherein that high tribunal promulgated the
wicked doctrine that the Black man in this
free land had ''no rights which the White
man was bound to respect" sand that the
negro might justly and LAWFULLY be reduced to
Slavery for his benefit.
1t was truly alarming to every lover OF
freedom in this land, when Judge TANEY
boldly proclaimed in his decision that the i'm
mortal declaration of independence did not
include and apply to the Black race, but that
the great and good men who adopted that
sacred instrument perfectly understood the
meaning of the language they used, and how
it would be understood by others, and they
knew that it would not in any part of the
civilized world be supposed to embrace the
negro race, which, by common consent, had
been excluded from the civilized govern
ments and the family of nations and doomed
to Slavery"
But the most startling announcement made
by the Supreme Court in this decision, was
that the Constitution of the United States,
carried with it Slavery into all the Terrific
ries of the Union And President BUCHAN-
AN in his letter to Professor SILLIMAN, says
that "Slavery existed and still exists in Kan
sas under the Constitution of the United &ates!"
Here it is boldly announced that Slavery is
no longer to DO regarded as a locat instltu-
tiou, authorized and controlled by nsunicipal
law, but that it is a national institution, ex
istng under and by authority of the nation
al Constitution!
By the authority Of this new doctrine of
the Supreme Court and of President BUcHAN-
AN, the judicial decisions of this country
from the time of the organization of the gov
eminent to the present time, are wiped away,
and of it we have heard no complaint either
from the Chicago Times or the Pioneer E.
Democrat.
Indeed they rejoice over the ''unanswera-
BILE" letter of the President to the 'insolent"
Connecticut clergymen!
And now we submit, that if Chief Justice
TANEY and President BUCHANAN are righ
in their view of the Constitutional sanction
of Slavery, than it will be hard for either the
Pioneer or the Chicago Times, to meet and
answer the position taken by the Admins
tration organ on this important question.
The Washington Union plants itself upon
the bred Scott decision and the Silliman let
ter, and the doctrine which it to-day avows
of the right of the Slave holder, to hold his
human chattles in Minnesota, is plainly and
Iegitimately deduced from that doctrine.
If Sauery is national institution, sane
toned by the National Constitution, which is
the primary law of the land, by what author
ity can State defeat its action?
What right has Kansas Gf this doctrine
is true) to abolish Slavery in that State
These papers have endorsed the doctrine
that the Constitution carried Slavery into the
Territory. And when rights have therefore
accrued there "under the Constitution of
the United States" they are very indignant
because the people of that Territory cannot
upturn and defeat their own alleged primary
law of the Uniom!!
The present position of the Democratic
party is precisely what the Republicans
have all along predicted it would be, and
for the utterance of their predictions, these
same papers which now howl and shrek so
loudly, were filled with the most low abuse.
They boldly proclaim now that they will
bolt the Democratic party if that doctrine is
adhered to.
Let them bolt. They can find no home
in the Republican ranks until they renounce
all the Infamous doctrines which have led to
the "bold and startling" conclusions of the
present administration organ.
They must denounce the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, the infamous Squatter
Sovereignty it attempted to enact, the
bred Scott decision and the SILL1MAN letter,
before they can with any consistency attack
the position taken by the Washington Union.
The fact is, the plain issue is about to be
made-the people can be deceived no longer.
These dishonest demagogues who did all in
their power to bring about the present state
of things, now fearing the time is at hand
when the unblushing dishonesty of the Dem
ocratic party will be laid bare, set up a howl
against the President whom they elevated,