Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-11-30
The staqaate.
For the Standard
SENATOR DOUGLAS AND JUDGE BLACK.

For the Standard
SENATOR DOUGLAS AND JUDGE BLACK.
mo l.
Mr.. EprroR:-Haytng established the proposition,
as we cnureive that there is no power under the
fsderal constitution enabling Congress to confer
I" ctiaenship" upon ''free negro" we deduce
therefrom not only the peculiar structure of our po-
litca 'organsm," but we close the door to the long
arrav Of analogica reasoning which the Senator pa
rades from the colonial history of the country.
It goes further; it reconces the seeming incon-
sstency involved in the admitted proposition that
Congress has nothing to do with slavery in the ter
rtories" with what we now afirm-that it is new
ertheless the bounden duty of Congress to nterpose
and protect the master in the maintenance o! recog
nized rights.
While the firstis admitted as an undeniable pro-
position, the second traces its paternity to the "or-
eanism" itself: and in claiming protection to the
Institution of slavery we claim it not as primary,
independent exercise of constitutional power not as
creating or establishing slavery "per Sc" but as an
cidentaI gro,cing out of and proceeding from, the
exercise of the main poUer-the obligation to pro-
tect property This obligation voluntarily assumed
and assented to by sovereigns in common, can never
be surrendered by the South even though the sacri-
flee be the Government itself) no matter what the
effects of the obligation may be in psrpetuatdng the
institution OF slavery
Yes, viewed in this light, it is continued guar
antee to the States and to the people of the Terri
ries that the same condition Of things shall remain
shall see proper.
Can it be supposed for one moment, (even by the
free soilers thelnselves that anything else was in
tended by those who made the constitution? Is not
this view in the most perfect accordance with that
provision of the instrument ITSELF basing represen-
tation upon the three-fifth principle? Did not this
look forward to the admission of States with that
species of population, (hed in subjecton,) and ex-
pressly allow them a representation upon the floor
of Congress? Was not that guarantee that the
same condition, the same States" should remain
in tact unnterfered WITH by any other than the
high contracting parties themselves! Certainly it
was and he who denies it knows but little of the
theory or of the practical operations of the federal
government
This view is strengthened also by the contempt
raneous history of the country, as we'll as by the
recorded admission of the principal Author of the
"Federalst by Alex. Hamilton himself-who ad-
mitted in the New York convention that but for the
three-ffth principle in federal legislation the south
ern States nerer oould hare entered the Union.
Now, can it be conceived, that when even repre-.
sentatlon was sine qua non, that they ever would
have agreed to live under constitution giving to
The thing is preposterous and perfectly absurd and
vet the whole drift of Senator Douglass argument
is to show that there is no restraining power las to
slavery upon the hostile legislation of the Ter
rtories, and this he attempts to prove:-First, by
the assertion, that with slavery Congress has moth
ing to do directly or indirectly, (Which in restrict
ed sense we admit j and, secondly, by drawing
comparison, and making a sameness Of political
rights to attach to the Territories did to the Colo
MES, prior to the organization of the federal gov
eminent
When the Senator strengthened his position by
such analogical reasoning this. it was in the first
place, incumbent upon him to show that there mas
an analogy; otherwise, his deductions were mad
Missile. To prove that, so far from there being
any resemblance, but that there was on the con-
trary, an entire dissimilarity, We will enumerate
few particulars.
The Colonies, when they asserted certain rights,
as being inherent and belonging to their brthrght,
Qike the Territories belonged to the government;
but when those rights were refused by the British
parliament and they attempted to carry them out,
they formally declared separation from that gov
eminent, and appealed to the God of Battles and as
such in the estimation of the crown, became disloya
subjects. Not so with the squatter sovereignty
doctrine of the Senator. He it is true claims his
doctrine as inherent and when he attempts to carry
it out he appeals neither to the Supreme Court to
the Constitution and still less to the God of Battles
but all the time processes loyalty to the whole
They maintained that what was denied them was
guaranteed by the British Constitution; but Senator
Douglas afirms that the power he claims is a sur
plusagc of rights, not affected by the American
Constitution. They threw off all governmental re-
straint, and enforced theirs by the sword, while he
claims the exercise of his in open defiance of the
highest judicial decisions, and processes loyalty all
the time.
If there be any resemblance here, we have failed
to perceive it, other than as we have said before,
that the actors are in both instances, men,
We fault not the Senator in failing to show a re-
semblance in the circumstances that led to the
American revolution with the present rights now
claimed by the territories for the truth is that no
such resemblance exists but We do fault him, and
seriously fault him, for The logged pertinacity with
which he holds on to position which has been so
completely demolished by Judge Black
The Senator seems entirely to overlook the true
theory of the government under which he lives and
in his present zeal for Democracy in the abstract,
has forgotten the only true and real Democracy, Of
which, hitherto, he has been such an able advocate
Democracy regulated by law and recognizing re.
straint, without which liberty would be licentious-
ness, and individual security an utopian vision.
That our government is peculiar, and in some Of
its features has no prototype is fact which history
clearly establishes
When or where was there ever government in
which there was restriction as to the power Of
naturalization? None can be shown either in an.
Gent or modern history, and yet we think that We
have proven that Congress cannot confer citizen
ship" either upon an Indian or free negro
When or where has birth, of itself, been denied
the privileges and immunities :" of citizenship
Nowhere else but with us, and this disqualification
is traced directly to the Constitution.
1t is true that "castes" do exist, but they have
been established have been created by the govern
ment referred to; but not so with U.S. The fedora
Constitution neither establishes or creates any cvi
distinction, but merely leaves that degradation
which attaches to color, in the same condition ir
whichit found it-free if free, snd slave if slave
1t did not by its operation, brutalize the African
and then allege this brutality as the reason for hi
exclusion, but it found him morally and intellectual
ly debased-an inferior race-and that inferiorit,
was the cause Of bis exclusion Yes, they foun.
"easte" distinguished by COLOR and degradation at
taching thereto, and knowing that the Leopar
could not change his spots the Ethiopian his skin
they wisely left both cause and effect in the hand
1of Hin, vho fachinno oil fh;nrc &c, A.,