Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-17
Non Intervention.

nlQQS.
Non Intervention.
Deliberately, and with eyes wide open, a
large portion Of the Southern Democracy is
now preparing-it cannot be denied to
negotiate another Compromise; the most IA
tai and pernicious of all their compromises :;
and to admit that the great principle an
nounced in the Cincinnati platform ssnon
interference by Congress with slaue,y in
State or Territory, or in the District Of Co.
lum bia means neither more nor less. than
total abandonment Of all right to protection
of that species Of property wherever Con-
gress is the Supreme power-that is speoi-
fically in Territories and in the District Of
Columbia.
TIE compromise is arrived at, very APP
propriately, by an equivocation-by assn
ming on the one side and granting on the
other, that non interference with the insti-
tuition means non-proteetion Of the property.
But the institution is one thing and the
property is another. Congress has no pow
er to create by legislation the business of
cotton-planting in any Territory; but if a
farmer plants cotton there, and if the func-
ton Of legislature be to protect property,
(Which nobody denies, } then it is the plain
duty of Congress- Of the legislature call
ed into existence by it, to protect the far
mer's property in the cotton be raised =
Congress has no power to legislate l;tera-
ture into Territory, or legislate it out: but
q man who brings books into Territory
ought, we SUI, pose, to be protected in the
enjoyment of his books.
If Congress, or the legislature, its agent,
refuse to protect property in books, why
then Congress makes intervention against
literature. Non interference with literature
in Territories requires that the legislature,
or Congress in its default, shall protect a
mans property IN bis books. Just SO nom
interference with slavery requires the legis-
lature, or Congress in its default to protect
a mans property in his slaves
| No difference can be SO much as conceiy-
ed between the two cases, except this differ
ence-that books and cotton are property,
but slaves are not property. Are Southern
men prepared to admit it? And suppose
the doctrine admitted - that the Cincinnati
'non-interference with slavery in States or
Territories, or the District Of CWhm bia, D
means the denial of protection to this species
Of property, why then it follows that Con
gress is bound to withdraw all protection
which now exists for slave property, here
in Washington, District If Columbia =
Heretofore it has been believed that the
power and duty Of our District Legislature
| lthat is Congress) WAS not to force slavery
upon us, nor exclude it FROM US, but simply
to protect US in the enjoyment of our prop
erty of what kind soever. For the future
If this monstrous doctrine be subscribed
to By the Democratic party The Black Re-
publicans may come in and say-as they
will-now abrogate all laws Of the District
which enable STAKEHOLDER to use, to control
Or re- capture his slave non intervention is
is the word, We see nothing further that
can prevent our Northern brethren from
pushing the doctrine to this legitimate logi-
cal result
The whole Of the arguments addressed to
the South in support Of Mr. Douglas and
his doctrine, rest on this single equivoca-
tion-that the establishment or exclusion OF
the institution, means protection or non pro-
lection of the property: and on this further
INVESTIGATION that
g Congressional legislation in protection
Of slavery in the Territories, irresistbly
carries with it the power to legislate for its
exclusion
Now, there are laws in the District OF
Columbia, enacted by Congress-adopted
by Congress from the State Of Maryland
Whereby save-oW are protected ia the
possession Of their slaves, and enabled to
control them does this carry with it the
power to rob every man Of his Slaves And
if not, why not?
Because it is the duty and function Of a
legislature to protect property and not to
rob-
In short there is no shadow of pretext
for admitting that slave property should
not be protected in Territores-or in this
District-except that one inevitable inexo-
rable, irrevocable admission that slavehold-
ers are thieves It is simply the South
pleading guilty guilty upon all the counts
| Whatever our Northern brethren have
heretofore urged against Southern men
that they are tyrants, pirates, fraudulent
dealers in otAey mems bones and sinews-
all is summed up, and fully admitted in
this one plea-that their property ought
not to be protected in their own Territories
like the property Of other men.
Be it SO: we are extremely tired Of the
subject; and begin to apprehend that all
our labor is in vain. Why should we, who
do not own negro in the world, disquiet
our souls about the status and rights of
slave property, if those whom it most near
ly concerns are willing to compromise it
away IF the South be content to see it's