Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-02-12
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
RRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1855.
THE LEcoMPToN CONSTITUTION OR A DIssoLU
TON OF THE UNION,
NY RITCHIE &c DUNNAYANT.

THE LEcoMPToN CONSTITUTION OR DIssoLU-
TloN OF THE UNION.
We have seen it ntmated that in the event of the
election of the Lecomp:on Constitution by Congress,
here will be movement among the Southern States
owards dissolution of the Union. Suoh an idea may
possibly be entertained by few of the overheated
nadcsps of the malcoutent clique Of incorporating
iisunionsts. But that the conservative sense of the
,outh-that eon,titxtional sentiment which backed
Mr. Buchanan in So and sustains him sl- In favor
If it. We do not tor a moment spprehend. Itis true,
he Kansas question involves that great principle Of
airness,, justness and equality, which must be main
aimed if the slave States are to be protected and se.
,ured in their sovereign rights But that the
eturu Of the Leoompton Constitution by Con.
yress, for the ratification of the people of
Kansas, would be an Infringement of that prn.
,iple, we are not prepared to admit. In ear
nestness and urgency, tho Enquirer" yields to no
Journal in the country in its advocacy Of the accep
lance ofthe Leoompton Constitution But if Congress
should determine to disregard dtherecommendations Of
The President and to turn deaf to the arguments
and appeals Of those Democrats, North and South,
who insist upon the admission of Kansas without
further conditions, shall dissent from the decision,
without joining in any wsr.cry Of dsunion. Let us
briefly examine this matter and ascertain its true
merits. The supporters of the Leconpton Couetitu
ton maintain that the principle of popular sove.
regnty should be held sacred in the eyes of every
Amerioan-that it's preservation is indispensable 10
the existence of our government. And at the same
time they hold that this invaluable principle has been
enforced az far the occasion calls for it, far
has ever been disputed, as far as representative re.
public need demand it under the circumstances by the
submssion Of the slavery clause to the people. They
are in favor Of the immediate admission of Kansas
into the Union because they consider it the safest and
speediest means Of quetiDg dangerous agitation
Because they regard the Lecompton Constitution as
q legitimate exposition of the will of Convention
called by the people for the purpose of framing it.
The opponents of this measure, on the other hand,
contend that as the people Of Kansas have not been
allowed to vote upon the whole Of it, there is no
proof that 10 acceptable to thsm and therefore, that
II should bs-not rejected by Congress, but returned
for popular ratification What then, is the difference
between Us and them-we mean between those who
favor the acceptance Of the Lsoompton Constitution
and those who oppose it1 1t is simply difference of
construction and Interpretation. Upon the principle
We concur. Mr.. Buchanan thinks the slavery ques.
ton was the only issue. Judge Douglas thinks the
Nebraska bill refers to the whole organic law Of the
territories Mr.. Buchanan think, the slavery clause
was submitted with sufficient fairness to test the
popular sense upon it. Judge Douglas differs
Mr.. Buchanan uphods the principle of popular so.
vergnty in all its purity and power. Judge Douglas
processes to do the same thing. Mr.. Buchanan con.
siders the immediate admission Of Kansas, the better
their sovereignty and undo whatever may be objeo.
tionable to them in the Lscompton Constitution
Judge Douglas prefers the plan Of returning the Con-
stitution to them. Thus they agree upon the prnci.
ple and disagree to the means Of most eaectualy
enforcing it. As the matter stands now it amounts
to question Of time and expediency only. And no
man can make more out of it.
The Missouri Compromise was hateful to the South.
And wbyl Because it denied US that equality In the
Union, which 10 guaranteed to US by the Constitution
Because 1t discriminated between institutions and
the institutions of the North Because prohibited the
stakeholder from carrying his property into the com.
mon territories, which belong alike to each and all
the States of the Union. Because it conceded to
Congress the right to egisate on the subject CT slave
~ n the territories, in violation Of the principle OF
popular sovereignty which recognises that right in
the people of the territories alone. The South de-
msnded the repeal Of this in;quitous and unequal
enactment 1t ros annulled and the right Of estab.
fishing repudatng slavery in the territories about
to become States, Has thus remanded 10 the people OF
those terrtories the South desired. The people Of
Kansas have voted, and decided in favor Of slavery
And hence we hold that the principle has been car
rsd out, and the Lecompton Constitution should not
be returned. But, say our opponents on this mea.
sure, uo believe the vote was not fair one We do
not believe the people of Ksnsas are In favor of
slavery one Of the institutions OF their
new State And, they add, 1t is because we wish to
carry out the very principle which the South demand
cd In the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise, that
we wish to return this Constitution for fair and foil
vote of the whole people.
The Black Republicans themselves have aban.
doued their original ground Of Federal inter-
vention, on this question, since they are com
PEELED to acquiesce in the exclusive right OF the
people of Kansas to accept slavery or reject it,
We thus see that if the Lecompton Constitution is
returned by Congress for popular ratification, there
South sdheres as the safeguard Of her institutions
and her honor. On the contrary It cannot be denied
that would be another instance Of it's enforcement
Whsre them is the cause to talk of dissolution Of
the Union7 Can the Southern people oppose
principle which 10 the sheet anchor Of their insttu.
tions, which they insisted upon in the Nebraska.
Kansas act and for which they are now strenuousy
oontending in advocating the acceptance of the Le'
compton Constitution. Whether the advocates or
the opponents of the reception of this Constitution
succeed, the same principle will be carried out.
A dissolution of the Union would be more than
mere pastime, both for the North and South. Itisa
calamity to be postponed as long as possibleas long
as the Constitution maintained and the rights Of the
savs States are not denied. The South can gain no.
thing bS threatening dsmemberment of the confs'
deracy without cause sufficient to justify it.
As our readers are aware, we are wamrly, enthusi'
ssticaly in favor of the immediate admission of Kan
sas with ,the Lecompton Constitution. We are in
favor of il, because we consider it the surest and
speedisst mode of adjusting dangerous and trouble.
some question; because We believe the principle In
volved has already been enforced. and because We
can see no necessity for referring the Constitution to
the people, when by accepting it Congress will sooner
eusble them to amend or overthrow it if it is
really not acceptable to them. And we need
not say that as regards devotion to the rights and
interests of the South, the Richmond Enquirer
cannot be questioned, even by the most malignant of
It's enemies. But in contemplating return OF the
Constitution by Congress, for popular
ratification, our wrath is not raised to such pitch as
to induce rs to associate it with an immediate sepa
ration Of the South from the North We are far from
looking upon the Union as indivisibls. There may
be- and We fear that sooner or later there will be, good
cause for 90 lamentabls event But, until then it
s the duty sst should be the pride Of every patriot
ic citizen in the country, to endsavor to avert it.
Tho South has not all to fear from her enemies
She has indiscreet and mpetuous friends, who, nm.
less they are closely watched and cautiously guarded
against may precipitate her into the abyss of dis