Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-11-19
Huntsville, Novl 9Th, 80.
Attorney General BLACK and Mr..
Douglas.


Aessrs. Editors The article attributed t.
| Attorney General BLACK, reviewing NJ
DOUGLAS essay in Harrers Magazine has beef
| called by some powerful vindicaiion
the true democratic doctrine and as cleaI
ly defining the subject of controversy an,
making the great question plain and simpl,
Hoping that it did 80, have read and re
read it. and aside from the manifest injustic,
it does Mr.. DOUGLAS, | think it falls short 0
clearly showing what we ought. as democrats
to maintain as opposed 10 MIR. DOUGLAS.
Whether we should, under certain contin
gencies maintain slave code by Congress
for the territories, the writer is silent.
What he maintains as good party policy is
clear enough, but that he sustans il 10y CON
sistent argument and unsophistical state
ments, is not So clear to my mind.
The beginning, middle and end of the ar
ticle shows that the main object of the wri-
ter is to destroy the influence Of the Little
Giant" the "unconquered rebel" with the
democratic party. In the beginning. h.
s.damns him with faint praise" in the middle
he is inclined to ridicule him, and in the
end he affects To lament his fallen estate"
The Attorney General after giving Mr..
DOUGLAS three divisions of the democratic
party, denies his right to Interfere between
the two he opposes, because he says Mr..
DOUGLAS is equally opposed TO both.
The very reason Zone not a lawyer would
suppose, why he had right TO speak of the
divisions he opposed, especial as they both
opposed and fought him.
But the Attorney General thinks it is "in-
tervention' un jus iliable on the part of Mr..
DOUGLAS to 'ventilate' the discrepancies be-
tween Southern and Northern BUCHANAN dem
ocrats. But l apprehend that the hone st
masses Of democracy will not think it so un-
justilable as intervention by Congress to
make an unwilling people tolerate slavery.
The Attorney General lit is an aXio-
matte principle of public law that a right of
property, a private relation, condition or
status, lawfully existing in one State or coun-
try is not changed by the removal OF the
parties to another country. unless the law OF
that other country be in direct conflict with
it,"
Now if this be so, one might go to England
or France with his slave and hold him as
property, unless the Wilmot proviso was up
on their statute books. Yet | presume one
had as soon trust the people and courts Of
Ohio to protect him in his slave that the
people aud courts Of France and England
would do so, whether they had direct law
against il or not.
And if true, colony of masters and slaves
from Cuba might settle upon our territory
and establish slave State without territori-
al lcgislation) though every State in the
Union had abolished it.
Therefore to rest the right Of property in
"A slave upon the same principle as that OF
an OK is sophistical and is also in consistent
with the idea that slavery depends upon
local law. but establishes i. upon the princi-
pies Of common law or by general consent of
nations, aud requires local law not 10 estab-
lish it, but to prohibit it. This idea that Il
negro is as much property as an OK, runs
through the whole argument of the writer,
and if it be true no civilized conn
much less territory, can any more con-
iscate my negro than they can my OK or
horse; and all the writer rays against legis-
lative robbery by the people OF territory is
as valid against it at one time aud one coun-
try rs another.
No one will contend that the people when
they come to form State Constitution Tor a
territory can coniiscate all The peoples oxen
ald horses, and say they shall never more
own any, and IL not, why his negroes +!
would like for some attorney TO show.
The writer speaking Of Mr.. DOUGLAS, pro-
posing and voting for The Kansas-Nebraska
Bill. asks the QUESTION did be or any body
else ut that time deem 1t was necessary to
make q positive law In favor OF the slave
holder before he could go there with satrtyV
Mr.. DoU0lAs nor any other good democrat
thought it WAS necessary, neithtr did they
thiuk 1t was accessory to say TO the slave
holder they would pass one 10 protect him
after be got there.
Dat what they thought was necessary they
said and that was, that the "peopls were
len perfectly free"
the doctrine that Mr.. Doudt-As and his
friends still stand by and will stand or tall
by.
The writer Gays that II Mr.. DouoLAs means
"the Consultation neither establishes nor
prohibits slavery in the States OF Terrtaries
prqpr,o v,gors" that it is just what be had been
..tI wing Ia uroven
But that if he means slave does not ~
malu slave and tree negro tree la The ter
rItories, that ID Is grave error and absurd
aud contradictory.
Mr.. DouoLAs admits that they do remain
slave or free until the people Of The territory
who are len sperleoily free, &e.." eco proper
To change their status. But the Attorney
GenfTai while admitting that the eonstiln'
ton is Proprio s,sers unanalinedly indinFreat.
Jet II the people who are perfectly free,