Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-12-16
Sc Noa-Intervention ''-Kansas.

Agitation against slavery was renewed in l847,
when it was proposed to acquire certain territories
from Mexico. The enemies of the institution were
generally willing to acquire the territory but they
insisted that indispensable condition of the &C.
QUESTION domestic slavery should not be carried to
nor exist within it. They proposed TO prohibit slave
ry by direct Congressional enactment in all the ter
rtores thus acquired to be acquired south of the
Missouri line, the institution having already been
interdcted by similar enactment north of that
line; and Mr.. Wilmot offered his proviso accord
ingy.
1t was insisted on the other hand that these ter.
ritories. as they were acquired by the joint blood
and treasure, and as the States were equals under
the Constitution, should be open to the people of all
the States; and that the Southern stakeholder had
as good right to settle upon them with his slaves
as the Northern man had with his property. The
South prevailed, and the Wilmot P:oviso was de-
feated positive Congressional enactment; yet
meanwhile California, whose people had irregularly
and without authority of Congress formed Consti-
ton prohibiting slavery, was admitted into the
Union. Judge Douglas spoke and voted for her ad-
mission.
The bills passed by Congress in 1850, organizing
the Territories of Utah and New Mexico disregard.
ed and virtually repealed the Missouri restriction in
that they provided that States might be formed out
of these territories and admitted into the Union with
without slavery their Constitutions might pre-
scribe; but it was not until the Kansas Nebraska
act had been passed in 1854, that this restriction
generally regarded having been rendered to.
tally imperative aud void.
The North as a section-or rather the anti-slavery
North-had never respected the Missouri line. Not
content with having excluded slavery from all the
territories which should have teen common north
of a certain line of latitude, they endeavored to ex-
cude it from all the other territories acquired or to
be acquired. They broke the bargain between the
two sections limiting slavery, if indeed bargain
had ever been made; and the Kansas Nebraska act
restored the former condition of things in this
spect by repeating this restriction. And not only
this but it restored the Constitution itself it's for
mer vgor that instrument having been violated, as
the Supreme Court have recently declared, when
that restriction was adopted. 1t was provided by
the Kansas Nebraska act not that slavery should be
leg slated into or egislated out of any territory for
Congress possessed no such power; but that the
people Of the territories should decide this question
for themsetpes. ,ohen they to form Constitutions
the principle of non-intervention by Congress in
questions of slavery in the territories first fully and
emphatically presented in the Kansas Nebraska act.
What thenP The people Of Kansas, under that
act elected Legislature, and the Legislature passed
a law providing for Convention to frame State
Constitution. This proceeding seems to have been
legal and regular; though it is replied it moi,
for that the people of Kansas ought to have awaited
the passage by Congress of IN "enabling act"-an
act authorizing the calling of Convention. and pro-
viding as in the case of Minnesota that the Const
| tuition to be formed should not be considered as
adopted until approved by the people at the polls.
The Convention was elected and assembled. A por
ton of the people, who were in q revolutionary atti.
tude who repud,ated the organic act itself and the
Legislature elected under it, and who claimed that
their Constitution, thus framed in defiance Of and
against law, was the true Constitution, refused to
vote in the election of delegates This was their
fault, and not the fault of the Legislature or the
Convention of Kansas. A Constitution was formed
at Lecompton, and the question of slavery has been
submitted to the people. They will vote on Monday
next "for the Constitution sotA slavery" and "for
the Constitution without slavery" The Convention
did not think proper to submit the Constitution to
:
though it might have been proper, under other cir
cumstances, to have submitted the entire instrument
to the people for their approval rejection yet to
have done SO in this case would have been to ensure
its rejection not by the law loving and law abiding
citizens Of Kansas, but by body of men who are
openly deiying all law and all authority, and who
would have voted it down with the sole view of per-
petuating for their selfish ends the existing dis
cord and anarchy.
Bot it is said the slavery question has not been
fairly submitted, because no one can vote upon it
without approving the Constitution This objection
is more specious than solid. The Constitution is
good one-as good as those usually framed, and is
no doubt approved by large majority of the people,
No Constitution could be framed " hich would meet
the approval ofevery inhabitant Such instruments
must be approved as whole; and those who are
disposed to be fastidious should make up their minds
to take something or even much that objection.
able, in order to obtain State government and set
tie finally the question of slavery. s'rr1
But We 60 beyond sll this, and ask what right
Congress has to inquire whether the Constitution
has been submitted to the people not, whether
the question of slavery has been submitted to the
people or noti BY what authority can Congress
say to Kansas, "adopt your Constitution and settle
the question of slavery at the polls, is settle
ment and no Constitution" Would that be non-
interventoni Can Congress intervene and com.
manc the people Of territory to form their State
Constitution in a certain wayi Ifso, what becomes
of the great principle Of non.intervention. which
leaves the people of the territories perfectly free to
ssttb tie question Of ssaoery for Memssloes in their
os'n soay &. q .1.g