Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-03-23

and climate than npon Local legislation; and this
fact AeNg conceded We can psreeiye more clearly
the Importance of the great principle which was vn-
dcated and established in KansaS;N act,
to wit the repeal Of the Missouri restriction which
placed the South the same ground with the North
under the Constitution, opened all the Territories
to her people, and provided that in future State
should be refused admission into the Union because
of Constitution recognizing slavery.
The Clayton compromise, heretofore referred to-
and which had the sanction of Mr.. Calhoun, prov
ded for referring all questions of slavery in the Ter
ritores to the Supreme Court for decision; but it
also provided that the Territorial Legislatures should
have power either to establish or prohibit slave
ry. This is the true ground. There is no such
provision in the Kansas Nebraska act Under that
act the people perfectly free to form and regu
late their domestic institutions in their own way
subject only to the Constitution ofthe United States"
To regulate" and not only to regulate" but to
"tom." And this, be it remembered is intended
to embrace their Territorial condition, we'll the
period when they will assemble in Convention to
torM State Constitution. "
7 We hold that the people of the South have as
good right to cmigrate to the Territories with their
property as the Northern people have with theirs;
and that after they get there, they entitled
der the Constitution to hold their slaves and enjoy
the benefit of their labor until the people assemble
in Convention to frame State Constitution We
hold that no power less than sovereign prevent
them from enjoying this right but if the people
in Convention decide that slavery shall not exist in
the Territory, the STAKEHOLDER is bound by the de-
cision, and must remove his slaves. Territorial
governments created by, and exist at the will Of
Congress; and as Congress cannot constitutonaly,
by unfrendy legislation otherwise, exclude slave
ry from the Territories so the people of the Terri
tories cannot, while in Territorial condition. But
suppose they attempt it, what then? The question
of their right to do so is tried, and the Supreme
Court declares their action unconstitutional and
void. But suppose they refuse to take any action
to protect the slave or the MASTER what then? Sup
pose they refuse even to regulate" the institution,
as Gen. Cass declared they have the right and only
the right to do-what is the remedy ?-what is the
STAKEHOLDER to do? New Mexico, for example,
considerable portion of which lies north of the Mis-
souri, ine has just passed act to protect slavery,
afording remedies to the master for injury to his
property and redress to the slave for nhuman treat
mcnt the object of the act being to give stability
and value to the institution in that Territory but
Kansas refuses to pass any such aw. What is the
remedy? Must Congress intervene and pass such
an act? Looking above and beyond the Kansas
Nebraska act, as we have right to do-for Con-
grcss may repeal that act-can Congress constitu-
a. l., Gov.
to that enacted by New Mexico? The Constitution
gives to the STAKEHOLDER the right to carry his slaves
to Kansas and the Supreme Court expounding the
Constitution, decides that he may hold and enjoy
them after he gets there; but his rights under the
Constitution and under the decision of the Court,
are practically nulli6ed by the non-action Of the
Territory There seems to be no remedy short Of in
terrenton by Congress- and that interrention ~e mag
not hope Jor Butifapplied would it be an available
remedy? Could Congress force upon people
the institution Of slavery against their will? And
would not demand for this remedy by Congress,
and its discussion in that body, tend to inhame
than ever the North against the South and the South
against the North? Messrs. Davis, Brown, Green,
and other Southern Senators declare they must have
intervention, or in other words protection by Con-
gress for Stare property in the Territories; and
Messrs. Douglas, Pugh, and other Northern Sena-
tors declare they will never vote this protection.
The Northern Democratic press, with almost one
voice. insists that the slavery question shall not be
reopened soemnly announcing that if it is, and il
they are required to advocate protection by Con-
ress to slave property in the Territories they cannot
sustain themselves and that State after State in their
region will go over to the abolition side.
The Kansas Nebraska act expressly provides that
these Territories, "when admitted State OF
States, shall be received into the Union with OF
without slavery as their Constitutions may prescribe
at the time of their admission" If the Territorial
Legislatures are permitted meanwhile, however tc
exclude slavery, what mockery to the South is this
provision that the Territories, "achen admitted a
States" shall come in with or without slavery y
as they may prefer OF course if slavery is kept
out of the Territory, the State, when admitted,
will come in "wthout slavery" That is as clear as
it is unjust and provoking.
The Southern people have uniformly repudiated
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. They have
held, and now hold, with Mr.. Buchanan, that "the
people of Territory, like those of a State" shall
decide this question Of slavery for themselves-sha
decide it "like those of State" in Conrention as
States decide it for themselves. They have no right
to decide it before Convention is held they have
only the right to regulate" the institution, and
they are bound by good faith, by common justice,
by the Constitution and by the decision of the Su
preme Court, to regulate it SO as not to injure
destroy, or exclude it This was the construction
given every where in the South to the Kansas-Ne-
braska act Senator Douglas was so understood,
and 20 were the Northern Democracy generally.