Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-09-21


and every man who has taken an oath Of fidelity to
the Constitution is religously morally, and pol'tl-
cally bound to regard them as such. Does anybody
suppose that Constitution which acknowledges the
sacredness of private property SO fully would want
only destroy that right not by any words that arc
found in it. but by mere implication from its general
principles? 1t might as well be asserted that the
general principles of the Constitution gave Lane and
Montgomery license to steal horses in the valley OF
the Usage
4. The Supreme Court of the United States has
decided the question. After solemn argument and
careful consideration that august tribunal has an
nounced its opinion to he that STAKEHOLDER, by 60
ing into Federal Territory does not lose the title
he had to his negro in the State from which he came
In former times, question of constitutional law
once decided by the Supreme Court was regarded as
settled by ALL except that little band of ribald inf
dels, who meet periodically at Boston to blaspheme
the religion and plot rebellion against the laws of
the country The leaders of the called republican
party have lately been trcadng close the heels of
their abolition brethren; but it is devortly to he
hoped that Mr. Douglas has no intention to follow
their example In case he is elected President he
must see the laws faithfully executed Does he
think he can keep that oath by fighting the judici-
airy?
5. The legislative history of the country shows
that all the great statesmen of former times enter
Y
they did not even think of any other. 1t was uni
versally taken for granted that slave remained
slave and free man freeman, in the new Terrific
ries until a change was made in their condition by
some positive enactment. Nobody believed that
slave might not have been taken to and kept in the
Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1877 or
some other regulation had not been made to prohibit
it. The Missouri restriction of 1920 was imposed
solely because i: was understood (probably by every
member Of that Congress) that, in the absence of
restriction slave property would be as lawful in the
eye of the Constitution above 81 deg. 30 mn as be-
low and all agreed that the mere absence of a re-
strcton di! in fact make it lawful below the COM
promise line.
6. 1t is right to learn wisdom from our enemies.
The republicans do not point to any express proTis
ion OF the Constitution, nor to any general principle
embraced in it. to any established rule of law,
which sustains their views. The ablest men among
them driven by stress of necessity to hunt for ar
guments in code unrevcaed unwritten, and unde-
fined, which they put above the Constitution or the
Bible and call it "higher law" The ultra aboli-
tionsts of New England do not deny that the Con-
stution is rightly interpreted by the democrats,
not interfering against slavery in the Territories
but they dSdain to obey what they pronounce to be
ian agreement with death and covenant with
hell"
Z. What did Mr.. Douglas mean when he proposed
and voted for the Kansas Nebraska hill repeating
the Missouri restriction? Did he intend to tell
Southern men that notwithstanding the repeal of
the prohibition. they were excluded from those Ter
ritores as much as ever? Or did he not regard the
right of master to his slave perfectly good when
ever he got rid of the prohibition? Did he or any
body else at that time dream that it was necessary
to make positive law in favor of the Shareholder
before he could go there with safety TO ask these
questions is to answer them. The kansas-NebraSka
bill was not meant a delusion snare. 1t was
well understood that the repeal alone Of the re>tric
ton against slavery would throw the country open
to everything which the Constitution recognized as
property.
We have thus given what we believe to be the
opinions held by the great body of the democratic
party-namely, that the Federal Constitution does
not establish slavery anywhere in the Union that
it permits black man to be either held in scrvitude
made free as the local law shall decide and that
in Territory where no local law on the subject has
been enacted it keeps both the slave and the free
gro in the status already impressed upon Them
til it shall be changed by competent local authority
We have seen that this is sustained by the Of
the thing, by great principle of public law by the
words of the Constitution, by a solemn decision
of the Supreme Court, by the whole course of our
legislation hv The concession of our political oppo-
nents, and finally, by the most important act in the
public life of Mr. Douglas himself
Mr.. Douglas imputeS another ahsurdty to his op-
ponens when he charges them with insisting THAT
it is the duty of the Judiciary to protect and MAIN
tain slavery in the Territories without any lar up-
on tile s"lject." The judge who acts without law
acts against law; and surely no sentiment so afro
clous as this was ever entertained by any portion of
the democratic party The right of master to the
services of his slave in Territory is not against
law, nor without law. hut in full accordance with
law. IL the law be against it we are all against it.
Has not the emgrant to Nebraska Il legal right to
the OK team, which he bought in Ohio, to haul him
over the plains? Is not his title as good to it in the
Territory as it in the State where he got it p
And what should be said of Judge who tells him
that he is not protected or that he is maintained in
the possession of his property without any law up
on the suhect?'
II. We had right to expect from Mr.. Douglas at
least 4 clear and ineligible definition of his own
doctrine We are disappointed. 1t is hardly pos
sible to conceive anything difficult to compre
bend. We will transcribc it again. and do what can
| be done to analyZe it.
"Those who believe that the Constitution of the
United States neither establishes nor prohibits slave
ry in the States or Territories beyond the power Of
the people legally to control it. but leaves the peo
pie thereof perfectly free to form and regulate Their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States I"
| INe COHN1tuttOn neltnPr eSt0bt7SheS nor DrOh161L
slarery in the Suites or Territories fit he meant
by this that the Constitution does not oprio rgore
either emancipatc any mans slave create the con
dition of slavery and impose it free negroes, bu
leaves the question of every black mans status il
the Territories well in the States to be deter
mined by the local law, then we admit it, for it il
the very same proposition which we have been try
ing to prove But if on the contrary it is to b.
understood as an assertion that the Constitution
does not permit master to keep his slave or fire.
negro to have his liberty, in all parts of the Unol
where the local law does not interfere to prevent
then the error is not only very grave one but i
is also absurd and selfcontradctory.
The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibit
Slavery in tile States or Territories beyond the poue
Of the people legally to control 1t. This is sailing
to Point.No-Point again. Of course subject whic
is legally controlled cannot he beyond the powe
that controls it. But the question is, what const
tutes legal control, and when the people of Stat
or Territory are in a condition to exercise it.
The Constitution OF tile United States i
leaves the people perfectly free,
and subject Onlu to the LOnstitufj0n Of the Unite