The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-12-01
TRANSFORMATIONS MESSAGE.

Office of Governor, appears to have squelehed
entirely the disunion tendency in that State.
The Governor, in his annual message at the
close of his official career has given to the peO-
pie one of the most temperate disquisitions
upon Federal relations which we have read for
many day. His treatment of the Harper's
Ferry affair is positively tame, and would not
be regarded as sound in Democratic cir
cles in the free States He gives not the faint
est hint of disunion but merely berates his po-
ltical opponents for their want of orthodoxy, and
declares that the South will maintain her con
stitutional rights, which no one will dispute her
right to do.
He reviewed the history of parties from the
formation of the Federal Constitution down to
the present times. We extract all that relates
to the parties and issues of the day. He con-
cludes as follows:
"a party which united with the advocates OF
the Wilmot proviso in l84S, in the support OF
Taylor and afterwards voted for Fillmore with
his Free Soil and black tariff record, without
the remotest prospect of success thereby evin-
cling willingness for the election of the Black
Republican, Fremont, over Mr. Buchanan,
whose Administration they now pretend to sup
port, can surely have but little room to stand
upon the platform of Democratic organiza-
ton, which has been opposed by every word,
deed, act, and sentiment of their whole lives.
The hypocrisy and righteousness of such a pre-
tension are too transparent for comment. 1t
is to be presumed that all are for the Union an
der the Constituencies no organized party is
known 10 exist in opposition to it)-but if the
opinions of those claiming its advocacy as their
own peculiar creed imply obedience and I'M
conditional submission to capricious, sectional,
and unauthorized exactiOn, then fealty to it
would be inconsistent with the rights of the
ireemen of this or any other country. 1t does
not pariake of the spirit of those who pledged
their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors, in de-
fence of the liberties of these States
There can be few so blind to the lights
which are gathering around US, as not to see
that events are fast converging to fearful ca
tastrophe. Witness the recent invasion and at
tempted instruction at Harpers Ferry, and
which, though differing in the commission OF
the overt act, events have had counterparts in
our own State within the last six months not less
ominous. From the open avowals Of the Op
position in Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and
Maryland, of the intention to cooperate and
not difficult to foresee what will be the conduct
of those who are Fastening the approach o.
danger by voluntarily pledging themselves tC
unconditional submission and heaping upon
those who will not bow to so base and slavish
heresy, the threadbare charges of secession
and dlSunion. The attitude of affairs CLOSELY
resembles that which existed prior to the Amer
lean Revolution, when the patriots under the
lead of jefferson, Franklin, and other sages
and heroes, exhausted every resource of argu
ment and entfeaty in their petitions to the Brit
ish Government for an observance of the rights
under its ancient constitution as subjects OF
the Crown. This ! regard as analogous to the
position of the States Rights Democracy of the
South and of the Union.
"a dissolution of the Union has not been
sought, and perhaps never will be, as long as
Its existence Is consistent with the rights guar
antled by the Constitution. 1t is an alternative
which would be perlerred only to those intol
cradle and greater evils which caused the
separation of the thirteen United Colonies from
the mother country, of which Mr.. Jefferson has
well said there could be none greater than
submission to a Government of unlimited
powers
. The States Rights Democracy RELY upon
the conviction that the Government was founded
in the interests and affections of the people.
and that upon them it must rely for mante-
nance and support that it has derived its lust
powers from the consent Of the governed in the
form and the extent prescribed by the Constitu.
ton as their only source; and when it shall have
ceased to fulfil the object of its creation. and
not till then, will arise sufficient cause for its
dissolution.
" But the Opposition, by a loose construction
OF the Constitution, have always claimed for
the General Government more extensive DOW
ers than are warranted by that instrument.
From this view results, as natural conse-
quence, their doctrine of unconditional sub-
mission, which, by higher-law construction.
makes the agent superior to the principal and
olnds the latter to obey without murmur the
most outrageous usurpations of the former.
No one will pretend that so broad q rule of
construction could be maintained at common
law, iii cases arising between individuals: but.
strange as II may seem, no other inference from
1t can be drawn than that Government whose
powers are clearly limited and confined by a
written Constitution, may use force to cause
the sovereign States which adopted that instru.
ment to obey Its most unjust and unconstitu.
tional measures.
. From this same system of false construc-
ton has sprung the issues Of squatter or Ter
ritorial sovereignty, which ambitious and blind.
ed partizans have seized upon as new element
OF agitation. The doctrine that the Territories
are the common property of the Union, and
that the citizens of each of the States have the
indefeasble right to protection of their property
of every description therein, is too we'll settled
to admit OF any refutation. The Constitution
of the United States has recognised property
in slaves to stand upon the same footing as
other property, and therefore entitled to protec
ton in the Territories. In the bred Scott
decision, it was held that neither Congress nor
the Territorial Government could prohibit it in
the Territories, and that it was the duty OF
| Congress 10 protect it, The Territorial Gov.
ernments occupy a subordinate position to that
oI me General Government, which has been
wen hkened to that of corporation, created
Oy the State-a creature of its will, and au.
,norized to exercise such powers only as have
9eeh conferred, and certainly not those which
Go not belong to the State itself
These issues do not legitimatelv flow from
the non-lntervention doctrines of the Kansas
and Nebraska act, nor of the Democratic Not
form, which simply mean that Congress- sbonld
neither establish nor prohibit Slavery in the
| Territories, but leave the question to the Con.
stitution and the courts. When the courts
have interviewed and determined the ouest;on
the South is not allowed the benefit of that do
cision, but an appeal is taken to the people
with the revolutionary object of depriving us O
that protection of the property of our citizens
to which the Constitution entities them. Tn
| Democratic party has always claimed to be tn
only true representative of the principles O