Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-10-17

The Banner Of the l4th instant contains the fol-
lowing paragraph;
We do not misunderstood our neighbours position
on this question. He does not think the people of
Territory have the right to abolish slavery, by the
direct enactment of a law for that purpose, and we
do not assign him any such position. We say, how.
ever that the views entertained by him on this
question are in effect, the sTme thing, and accord
ing TO the position of the UNION AND AMERICANG ter
rilorial legislature may indirectly abolish slavery
For instance slavery could not be PPeuGtsd IN any
colz-V Il sIaUes Dere GlOtVsd assemble together
large Numbers ThsneUeT they pleased Netttsr could
the 5ermanezcy Of The institution be established nth
out a patrol La0. Il would be a vain and idle
task to establish slavery without some restraint
upon the negroes to prevent them gathering together
in such numbers as to make them formidable. Ii
there were no such restraints in Tennessee, we
could not hold our slaves six months. The people
Of q Territory have no advantages over US 10 this
respect Restraining laws necessary TO them
ss 10 us and as slavery cannot exist without them,
it follows that the people Of aterTtoy virtually aeOl-
ish slavery by refusing to enact such laws. Non,
o, ,igk6or and COL JEFF DaUis bslsts thai Ne people
of territory may refuse to eHcct such lars and no
Dower on earth can compel them to act otherwise. Ih
therefore think that the Legislature Of Territory may
indirectly abolish slavery, although they cannot ABOLISH
81 directly.
The Banner certainly maintains, as will be per-
ceved by a comparison Of the passages which we
have itslioised above that the failure OF terrific
rial legislature to pass laws to seetablish Parrol
and to prevent assemblages of slaves is practical
abolition of slavery. 1t states that We think the
legislature "may refuse to enact such lawS," and
argues we therefore believe the Legislature Of
territory may indirectly abolish slavery" Comment
ing on this argument in our next issue, we said:
'The Banner thinks that IL Territorial legislature
should refuse to enact laws establishing patrols and
prohibiting sssemblages of slaves it would amount
to an abolition of slavery Is cur contemporary ig>
norant Of the fact that slavery existed in several of
our slSveholding States while in territorial condi
ton without any such regulations? Does the Ban
ner believe that the legislature Of territory can be
compelled to enact such laws"
Our neigbbor evidently feels that he is cornered
and attempts to relieve himself from the difficulty
as follows:
In another article the UEIoS AND AMERICAN says:
ssThe Banner thinks that if Territorial Legislature
should refuse TO enact laws establishing patrols and
prohibiting sssembaGes Of slaves il would amount
10 an abolition Of slavery"
Not 50 fast neighbor. We have not expressed any
such opinion. If you had read our article more |
carefully you would have that We supposed |
these cases for the sake Of illustration.
five can understand the force Of language, the |
Bannsr does express the opinion which we attrib
utsto It, Il says "slsvery could nOtbe perpetuated |
in any country if slsves were allowed to assemble