The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-29

And piled with fruits, awake again
Thanksgiving for the golden hours,
The early and the latter rain.
]. G. w.
MR.. DOUGLAS AND THE SLAVE TRADE.
Mr.. Douglas has taken some pains to pro-
claim his hostility to the slave trade; but it is
a singular fact that nearly every newspaper and
politician in the Gulf States favorable to him
as Presidential candidate is also favorable to
the revival of the slave trade. The late Minis
ter to Mexico, Mr.. Forsyth, is the editor of the
Mobile Register, and a warm advocate of Judge
Douglas.
The Mobile Register says:
ave are in favor of the slave trade as
means of spreading the institution of Slavery
over new Territories as far and as fast IS
possible, as we'll as to remove from the Federal
statute book the substantial condemnation Of
Slavery itself, which our prohibitory laws pro
nounce against it. We do 'deprecate all South
ern division upon Slavery issues, seeing that if
the South were united upon such issues, allies
enough would be found at the North to carry
out their wishes"
This is a singular position for Douglas man
to take; and what renders the matter still more
singular is the fact that we find the paragraph
in the Washington States, the central organ of
Mr.. Douglas, unaccompanied with note or COM
ment
Mr.. Stephens, of Georgia, another friend Of
Mr.. Douglas, has avowed himself in favor of re-
opening the slave trade F; and such seems to be
the general feeling among Mr.. Douglass South.
ern supporters. Is it not strange that the ad-
vocates Of the slave trade, Messrs Forsyth and
Stephens, should select Mr.. Douglas, pro-
fessed opponent of that trade. as their first
are well acquainted with the Illinois Senator,
and are not leaping in the dark. They know
that his theory of popular sovereignty, when
carried out, will require the repeal of the Fed
eral laws against the slave trade, in order that
each independent State may determine for it.
self what shall be the character Of its domes-
tic institutions" They are aware that Mr.. Doug
las, in his Magazine manifesto has stated and
argued at great length that a leading cause of
the Revolution was the claim on the part of the
Colonies of the right to admit or exclude slaves
from Africa; and when the King of England
persisted in refusing his sanction to Colonial
laws for the regulation of the slave trade the Col
onies rebelled, and set up an independent Gov
eminent. Mr. Douglas labors this point at great
length. Then, would it not be singular if he.
as President, should pursue the arbitrary inter
vention policy of the English Kings, which he
so severely censures in his essay? Can he.
with any show of reason, claim for the Federal
Government a right to interfere with the domes
TIC affairs of States, when the weak and depend
ent Colonies of England are honored by him
for their resistance to such interference?
With Republicans, who claim for Freedom
what they will not cOncede to Slavery, we admit
that the cases are not regarded as altogether
parallel. We denounce, with Mr. Douglas, the
Kings of England for compelling the Colonies
to receive African slaves against their consent
but if the Colonies had desired the slaves, and
the mother country had refused to tolerate the
detestable traffic, we should have honored the
latter for the exercise of her restraining power.
But Mr.. Douglas has never admitted that any
such preference is to be given to Freedom over
Slavery. He admits that Slavery is as good as
Freedom, and entitled to the same protection
under the Constitution. This proposition he
has stated thousand times His Southern
supporters may therefore hold him to a literal
and consistent ful6lment of his pledges and.
they may with reason demand of him the same
non-intervention with the States, in the matter
of the slave trade, which he denounces the sov
ereigns of England for not practicing towards
the same communities, when they stood in the
inferior position of Colonies.
We cannot doubt that, in the event of Mr.
Douglass election to the Presidency. he will
act on this non-intervention policy with respect
to the slave trade. 1t will be in harmony with
his policy during the last ten years. He re.
pealed the Missouri restriction on Slavery in
the Territories under circumstances precisely
similar to those which surround the slaye.trade
question. he had declared the Missouri; Com.
promise compact between the North and the
South, scarcely less sacred than the Const;tu.
ton ITSELF He has declared the clause in the
Constitution which empowers Congress to PRO.
hibit the slave trade as zone of its eomnro.
misses" he afterwards repealed the Missouri;
Compromise in obedience to his then newly.
discovered principles of popular sovereignty"
and non-intervention with the affairs of the
States and Territories" He protested not to
be in favor OF the extension of Slavery into the
new Territories, as he now processes to be OBJ
posed to the revival of the slave trade; but, as
in the first instance, with regard to the Missouri
restriction, his only object was "to leave
the people OF the Territories perfectly free to
form and regulate their institutions in their own
way so in the latter, when as President he
shall recommend the repeal of the laws which
prohibit and punish the slave trade as piracy,
ne "ln not be moved by considerations favor
able TO the slave trade, oh mo- but simply and
solely by his reverence for the constitutional