Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1858-11-10

0OURnmB 000 IN 00EU0s
The Dsuocr.s;e party rejected Mr. Van Bursn
In lsl4. because Of certain herstieal opinions he
sntsrAinsd on The subject efslsvsty. All parties
q the South now denounce the "arch magician"
II Kindsrhook. Yet there are Southern men
who traApet forth tho virtues Of Stephen A. Doug
las. Notwithstanding the fact that Douglas views
on the same subject. are infinitely more dangerous
than those entertained BY Mr.. Ven Buren,. This
fact ID conclasively established in tho follow
ing article from the Washington Union, the argu-
ment Of which is irrsfatabie,
In what does the attitude Of Senator Douglas
today differ from that Of Van Buren, in 1S48i-
Mr.. Ven Buren, then took the ground that Con-
grses might idrfiliy exclude slavery from the
Territories, and ought to do 20. Mr.. Douglas 10
the inventor and prou,ulgator Of new way Of &C.
complaining tiar}nlly. as he says) precisely the
same thing by an indirect and less manly process.
He admits that citizens Of slaveholding States
have the right under the constitution to 20 into
and settle 10 any Of the Territories, taking with
then their property Of all kinds, slave property
and ell. He admits this TO be highland then
invsnts and publishes to the Black Republicans
and others mode whereby the right to hold slaves
in the Territories may lawfully be rendered nuga-
tory, barren and worthless He says the majority
opposed to slavery in Kansas may refuse TO pass
the necessary laws to protect slave property-that
the majority may lawfully and rightfully do this.
So argued the opponents of the fugitive slave
law. They admitted the constitutional require
ment ~ to the rendition of fugitives from labor
but knew, and acted that knowledge, that If
they did nothing-passed no law on the subject
the constitutional requirement would be nugatory,
barren and worthless. They claimed the right to
do nothing, and insisted that doing nothing was
not . violation Of the constitution But the dem
ocratc party, and with them the people Of the
United States, held differently. They held that
the constitution may be fagrantly violated by
omission a. oommisson-by emitting the per-
formance Of duty as by committing positive
wrong. If 1t be rightful, or. as Judge Douglas
says. lawful, for the territorial Legislature to with
hold the lsws necessary to the enjoyment Of slave
property then il is just lawful and rightful for
Congress TO withhold mot to pass) a fugitive slave
law. The constitutional right in each case would
be withheld, aud as rightfully or lawfully in one
case a. the other.
Mr.. Van Buren, said that though the savehold-
ers may have constitutional right to introduce
slaves into the Territories. yet it is lawful to rem
der it nugatory for that Congress has. the right,
in terms, TO exclude them. and as matter Of pol
icy, ought TO do 80. Judge Douglas says the
shareholders have the constitutional right to take
with them their slaves into the Territories; but
that there is lorfal way to exclude them. not
withstanding the decision of the Supreme Court
"A to the abstract right. The position Of Mr.. Van
Buren, was more open, consistent, direct, fair, and
manly than that Of Mr.. Douglas: but does not
more certainly effect the object Of excluding slave
~ from the Territories