The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1859-11-12
SLAVERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY TEE coNsr1-


sets possess, and have possessed for over
ftty gears, certain privileges in the matter
changing their domicils, which the citizens
of Virginia do not possess. One can 60 to
Ohio and carry his property and keep it
The other cannot. And yet demagogues
would have Southern men believe that no
discrimination against their property ought
to exist, or eUer did erist, and that to en-
force such discrimination in the settlement
of new States would be to establish dis
tinction between certain classes OF property
which the South cannot, in honor, sub
nit toll
If slavery cannot go into the free States
and maintain itself, why should it expect to
90 into free Territories and maintain itself
there being in neither case local laws to
protect it? Is not the Constitution OF the
United States as vigorous, as comprehensive,
and as Just in Ohio as it is in Kansas? Does
it not regard the property-the Oested rights
of all citizens, in all places OF the Repub-
lie, as equally sacred? If slavery is ma
tiondL-if it exists in the Constitution itself
how can the Constitution permit an owner
of such property to be despoiled OF 1t IN
free State, any more than in free Terrific
ry? Can State be permitted to nullify
the rights of man in property that is re-
cognized in the Constitution of the United
States-and the Federal Government have
no power to interfere? OF course not; for
the Constitution says that "the United
States shall guarantee to every State, Re-
publican form of Government" But such
a State Government despoiling man of
his right, would not be Republic but Des-
potic 1t is clear, that if slavery be the rule
if it be NATIONAL fit EXISTS in the COnsttt'I-
ton, and is carried wherever the ConstItu-
ton prevails-that it is as sacred in Ohio as
in Kansas, and as firmly to be upheld IN
either as on the banks of the Sabine
Wherever the flag of the Union floats, there
every citizen is entitled to protection in all
his riqhts, that are National and Constitu-
tional. Such would be the case with
regard to slave property, if slavery is ma
tional.
THE DISCRIMINATION NEVER THOUGHT HARD
SHIP BY THE SOUTH.
Bit this is not So 1t is not claimed even
by the South, and never has been, that
slave owner has right to remove with his
negroes toa free State, and call on the United
States Government to protect him in his
property. Yet his right to go to free State
ia as perfect, under the United States Con-
stitution. as it is to go to 81 free Territory.
Was not Kansas acquired by 'sthe common
blood and treasure of the Union ?" So was
Iowa-and what right has Iowa, any more
than Kansas, to discriminate against prop
erty SO as to deprive the citizens of any por-
ton of the Union of their national and
Constitutional rights2 This discrimination
against slave property, as regards emigration
into free States, we have thus shown, has
always existed, and never by the South
been thought hardship. And why? Be
cause, perhaps, the citizens of the slave
States felt that in the privilege to 00te on
their sLaUes that species of property had
obtained a peculiar and transcendeRt ad-
vantage over all other property in the Union,
that more than compensated for It's one re-
striction, to-wit: that it should not enter
into and establish itself in free States.
If the South is tired of this discrimina-
ton against slave property, which had ex-
listed since the Government was established,
and desires it abandoned, then the South
should propose to abandon, also, the privi-
leges that such property enjoys. Surely it
is only fair that property should, in point of
fact become equal before it claims 10 go as
equal into the common territory of the
Union If the South decline the one, how
can it fairly claim the other
THE SOUTH IN HONOR BOUND TO THE ORIGINAL
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED Ely LAW.
Mr.. Bates does not, therefore, regard the
non-admission of slavery into the terrific
res of the Union as establishing dstinc-
ton between property; but simply main
tanning distinction already established,
willingly assented to by the South at the
formation of the Government, and ever
since 1t is only at the instance of mis-
chievous demagogues that the South is now
tempted to change its position, and aban-
don the Constitution. As a true and up
right citizen, who loves his countryS well
kept faith, as he does his own private honor,
Mr.. Bates opposes the attempt of Southern
fanatics to make Ilavery overlap its origi-
nal rights, limitations, and relations to other
property of the Union.
Inasmuch as the entire Democratic party
of the free States are as decidedly opposed
as even the Republican party, to the extern
sion of slavery over territory previously
free, it is quite evident that Congress will
never intervene to protect slave property in
the Territories. Such being the fact, those
Southern men, who object to Mr. Bates as
slavery restrictionist, might we'll ask them
selves whether more of honor or advantage
is gained by asking what cannot be had,
and submitting to the fatal necessity of de-
NAL and defeat, or asking only that the
present limits, privileges, and guarantees of
slavery be maintained, and obtaining it
with the cheerful and hearty concurrence
of nine-tenths of all parties in the Union.
THE KANsAs-NEBRASKA BILL RENDERING THE
INTRODUCTION OF SLAVERY INTO TERRI
TORIES IMPOSSIBLE.
If the National Democracy offer more to
the South, we know they offer what they
cannot give, and do not mean to try to give.
The history of Kansas is too recent and too
instructive, in which we saw the most vi
client pro-slavery Democrats, as they pro-
fessed themselves, after getting men and
money from the South, by hundreds and by
thousands, to save Kansas to the South,
suddenly became free Democrats, when they
found success doubtful under the pro-slavery
banner, and sought office as free Democrats,
unblushingly declaring that slavery never
had been an issue in Kansas The princi-
pie of the Kansas Nebraska bill, in the
shape of squatter sovereignty, has rendered
the introduction of slavery into Territories
IMPOSSIBLE; and the passage of that bill is
the work of the National Democracy. Mr..
Rofo r. holds ac .ilNla that vVh icb