The Kansas herald of freedom., 1859-08-06
WhitheTWard.

trine gave way to the declaration that the
people Of. each Territory should decide
for themselves whether they would es-
tablish slavery or not, it being conceded |
that slavery was creature solely of local |
law, that it could not exist except by spe-
cial enactment. But the bred Scott de-
cision came in, recognizing slavery as
protected by the Constitution, just as
other property is, and standing on the
same basis with other property, and hence
not needing special legislation to estab-
lish it. Popular sovereignty did not sue
coed in establishing slavery in Kansas,
and it was at once discarded, and Con-
gressional Intervention demanded.
Sen. Green, Of Missouri, spoke at JEFF
ferson City, June 9th, on national poll
tics. He maintained that the term non
intervention was introduced as the oppo-
site of Congressional interference for the
purpose of establishing or prohibiting
slavery. That the question was now left
to the people, subject to the Constitution Of
tie United States. Well, what does the
Constitution decide on that question
He answers at is decided in the Court,
that under the Constitution, the people
of Missouri, and every other Southern
State, have right to take slaves into a
Territory, and that it does not work the
freedom Of the slave" Or, in other words,
slavery is such natural condition, that
no legislation is necessary for its establish.
ment, but that the right to hold slaves
stands on the same basis with the right to
hold other property. He plainly avows
that it was not to be supposed "that
when they succeeded in inducing Con-
gress not to interpose and prohibit or es-
tablish slavery, that they were only trans
ferring it Chat power) to a Territory"
"On the contrary, they supposed they
were inducing Congress to stand off-not
to establishment to prohibit and the
constitutional question being decided, oil
would bow to it, and no authority could
set aside the Constitution of the United
States" This sweeps away the right of
the people to abolish or prohibit slavery
during their Territorial existence. The
same logic would make it equally absurd
to suppose that when Congress was
stripped of the power to prescribe the
prohibition of slavery as requisite for
the admission OF State, that the power
of prohibition or abolition would be given
to the people Of Territory. A decision
by the Supreme Court that Constitution
al Conventions have no power to prohibit
slavery, will be fit addendum to the bred
Scott decision The real principle on
which the South contends for the right to
carry and hold slaves in the Territories,
is that citizens of the Southern States are
entitled to the same rights in the Terrific
ries as in the States. A very slight
amount of special pleading will suffice to
bring the Supreme Court to the avowal
of the doctrine that the clause of the
Constitution which provides that "Citi-
zens of each State shall be entitled to all
the privileges of citizens in the several
States" guarantees the right to hold slave
property wherever the federal Coustitu-
ton has sway. This may be construed,
and perhaps will be, to curtail the power
of Constitutional Conventions in reference
to the prohibition of slavery.
The South does not ask for the declare.
ton of this principle by the Supreme
Court just yet. The Northern anti slavery
sentiment is still too strong to make that
doctrine palatable even with Northern
Democrats. After the sovereignty of the
people of the Territories has been crushed
out, and they have submitted gracefully,
the same process of crushing out the
sovereignty of the. States, which has al.
ready commenced, will soon be in full
progress.
What position are the Republicans
taking on this question ? Some oEthem
have conceded to the South that the Con-
stitution of the United States views slave
property as on the same basis with Other
property. This once conceded, the laws
of property attach to slaves, aud the RICH,
to take them into Territory, is just as
full and sacred under the Constitution a:
the right to take any other property. All
talk about the right of the people of q
Territory to prohibit the immigration Of
slaves is foolish and futile. Popular sove-
reignty on such basis is the verissl
sham.
The real point at issue is the extent Il
which the Constitution recognizes slavery
and protects it. II, as our fathers held
slavery be creature of local law alone
and cannot exist without special enact
ment then it is legal in the several State.
in which it exists by virtue of the legisla,
ton Of those States, and not by virtue O
the Constitution of the United States
The Constitution does not expressly and
in set terms prohibit slavery, but this is
slim basis on which to build up lega
argument for the constitutionality Of thai
institution. This very lack, on the part o
the Constitution, to contain clause recog
MIXING and perpetuating slavery. and it
careful avoidance of the word slavery, i
in accordance with the opinion entertain
cd by judicial writers and by the founder