The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-07-28
HON. A. Il. STEPHENS OF GEORGIA.
HIS INCONSISTENCY.

further prosperity of the South. Below we
present his views upon the constitutional guar
antics of Slavery. 1t will be seen that he now
advocates slave code for the Territories, and
threatens to dissolve the Union, if the slave
holders are not protected in their alleged right
of carrying their slaves into them. He said
He was perfectly willing to remain in the
Union; but simply said, stay the hand of OPP
preston. AS much as he loved and admired
the Union, if the South was to be hemmed and
hedged in, he sods for resistance; sooner than
submit to practical or theoretical questions of
wrong, he was for resistance. He believed
truth would triumph; all the South wants is de-
cison, union, patriotism; he believed in the
power and omnipotence of truth, and would ask
for nothing wrong. The great principle to be
carried out is expansion-the right of the PEG
pie of the South to go to the Territories with
their slave property, protected by the Constitu-
ton on platform of equal right.
"The question was fully settled as princi-
pie, that Congress should make no discrimina-
ton in regard to sectional rights in the Terri
tories, but that the people of each Territory,
when about to form Constitution as State,
should decide for themselves whether they
should come into the Union as free or slave
State.
Inc missouri compromise UOcIrine, the
Texas doctrine, the Territorial doctrine of
Rufus King in 1917, have all been abandoned.
In the admission of this principle it was NOS q
trismph of the South, but triumph Of Justice,
truth, and right. The settlement was fully up
to the demands of the South. She never asks
but for what is right. The principle is now
settled, that Congress shall abstain from all leg
islatioH on the subject of Slavery in the Terri
tories, whether as to the North or the South
and the Territories are now open to all sections
and have the privilege of adopting Slavery or
not, as the people may choose when they come
to form Constitution.
"These measures did not go as far as he
wished he scould hare Congress to gice protec-
ton to Stare property IN Tie public domain as
long as ii remained an a Territorial condition.
I" A majority at the South differed with him
not more than twenty-five men in Congress
agreed with him-but he finally yielded to the
doctrine of non-intervention, because it was not
aggressive, and because it secured for all prac-
teal purposes what we wanted. If climate and
soil do not favor Slavery, it will not go into the
Territories
The following remarks of Mr.. Stephens, made
in the House of Representatives, in l647, have
been reproduced by the Albany EUening Jour
nal, and they will be found to be directly in
conflict with the position he now assumes
From the Congressional Globe, August :, 1 AZ.
"Here Mr.. Stanton, of Tennessee, asked Mr.
Stephens if the Constitution of the United
States does not recognise Slavery?
Mr.. Stephens continued. Yes sir, the
Constitution recognises Slavery, but only where
it is not prohibited by the laws of the State, or
place, or for the purpose of protecting it there.
The Constitution recognises Slavery in Tennes-
see and Georgia, and in all the States where
Slavery exists, by law; but it does not recog-
Mise Slavery in New York, or Ohio, or in any
State where it is prohibited by the law of the
State, except so far as it provides for the re-
capture of runaway slaves. The Constitution
recognises and guarantees Slavery wherever it
exists by the local law, but it establishes it no
where where it is prohibited by law. The Con.
stitution, as have stated, expressly recognises
Slavery, even where it is prohibited by the law
of the place, but only so far as to provide for
the recapture of a runaway slave. If my slave
escapes and gets into free State the Consti.
tuition secures me the right Of pursuing and re-
taking him but, if voluntarily take my slave
into State where Slavery by law is prohibited,
| have no right to retake him he becomes free.
No man will question this. And if Slavery is
prohibited by the local law of the newly ac-
quired Territory, the only guaranty the Consti-
tuition affords the STAKEHOLDER is the right of
recapture, if he escapes and gets into those
Territories The Constitution, l say, fully and
amply recognises Slavery where it exists, but
it establishes it nowhere where it is prohibited
by law. 1t is important that the public mind
at the South should not be misled upon this
point. The Constitution no more establishes
or carries Slavery into States or Territories
where by law it is prohibited, than it establish
es or carries any other right of a citizen which
depends upon the local law.
1.-THE Constitution secures to all the citizens
of all the States and Territories of this Union
the rights to which they are entitled by the
laws of the place. ii Virginia or Georgia
shopld abolish Slavery, the Constitution would
no more re=establsh it there than it has re-es-
tablished it in Pennsylvania, New York, and
other States, where it has been abolished. The
Constitution no more carries the local law of
| Slavery of any State into State or Territory
where, by law, it is prohibited, than it carries
any other local law-no more than it carries
| the law OF interest upon money, the statute of
limitations, the laws Of distribution or the penal
laws of State.
GAS | have but few moments left, | will
! recapitulate my positions, that no man may
mistake or misunderstood them:
%. That the Constitution Of the United
States fully recognises and amply protects the
institution of Slavery where it exists by the
laws of the State or place; but it does not es-
| tablish it anywhere, where by the laws of the
| place it is prohibited.
"3. That California and New Mexico being
Territories acquired by conquest all the laws
| which were in force there at the time of the
conquest, not inconsistent with the Constitution
| of the United States, or the stipulation of the
| treaty of peace, or which were purely of po-
litical character, aye, according to wellsetted
principles and the adjudications of our courts,
still in force
a. That as Slavery did not exist there at
the time of the conquest, but had been sprohib-
| tied by express law, the Supreme Court of the
United States, TO whom the matter was to be
referred in the last resort, could not be expect
ed, from the principles of numerous decisions
already made, to decide otherwise than that
Slavery cannot be protected there until the ex-
| listing law abolishing it be altered by compe-
tent authority
Mr.. Stephens is now hed up to tLe admiring
gaze of the country, as a statesman but the
above extracts from his speeches in l841 and
1859 show that upon this great constitutional
question be has no fixed views, and that his
opinions are adapted to bis party relations for
the time being, or to the ever-varying currents
of popular feeling. Mr.. Stephens, in fact, has
no pretensions to craftsmanship. He has no
fxed principles or policy to carry out, but has
only exhibited the qualities of an adroit and
successful demagogpe. He has a remarkable
talent, or instinct, for keeping in the middle Of
the current, and considerable facility for swim
ming with it.
! Mr. Stephens pretends that no assan+ad .o