The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-14
From the Constitution
Congressional Intervention in the Ter.
ritories.

| with slavery IN State and Territory, and Dis
| trjct of Columbia
This policy was adopted after years Of ex
hausting and profitless agitation; was accept
ed as final, and by none was it more strongly
urged, or more readily assented to, than BY
the South. five look back TO the records o
| Congress and read the speeches Of the choseI
| leaders of the South-the most renowned ant
unconapromising advocates Of Southern right
If We look back to the course taken by Cal
houn md Berrien, and other distinguished
| Southern Statesmen, when the slavery ques
| ton was most hotly discussed-we find thai
| they recommended "a0n-Gctioa" by Congress
| in the Territories as the only true policy, and
the only effectual means by which the ques.
ton could be safely settled to the interest o.
the South, and that they demanded mo Ian
to give them a,ly advantage"
This principle of non-intervention is the
very basis ofthe compromise measures OF 1850
and of the Kansas Nebraska bill we adopted
UNANIMOUSLY by the Cincinnati Convention,
and was incorporated into the platform framed
by that body as 'the only sound and safe So
luton of the slavery question"
At the time that this policy was adopted 1t
was matter of dispute whether or not the
Constitution Of the United States recognised
the right to hold slaves IN the Territories prior
to the adoption of any municipal law on the
subject; and special provision was made in
the Kansas Nebraska bill by which the de.
cision of this important question was left to
the Supreme Court Of the United States, the
highest judicial tribunal of our country. That
tribunal has decided that the Territories being
the public domain, and consequently the COM
mon property of all the States, the slaye-owner
has as perfect and indefeasible right to settle
there with his negroes as the citizen Of any
free State has to establish himself there with
| his horses or his sheep and that the Vgoprie-
tary rights of the owner in his slaves, and Of
| the latter in his horses and his sheep, being
| rights guaranteed by the Constitution. eventu-
ally entitled to protection. The position of
the question, therefore at this moment is as
| follows:
First. Congress has no power to interfere
with slavery in the Territories, either for its
establishment or abolition.
Second. That power is vested exclusively
in the people of the Territories when they
| assemble in convention for the purpose OF
forming State constitution preparatory to adj
mission into the Union.
Third The Constitution recognises the
right to hold slave property in the Territories,
as right indefeasible by Congress or the Ter
ritories and places that property, like every
other species ofpropcrty, under the protection
of the courts Of the country, created for that
purpose, and armed with full power and au-
| thority for its execution
The North and the South accepted this
position, and pledged themselves to maintain
| it, as the most equitable settlement Of the
constitutional relations which should exist be,
tween the States and Territories, and as the
most complete establishment of the rights
and privileges of the various members Of the
confederacy as defined and guaranteed by the
Constitution. Without violation of our pledg
es. and without deliberate annulment Of the
great principle acknowledgements byCongress
we can neither admit that territorial legs
lature can lawfully pass enactments hostile tC
slavery, nor that Congress should intervene
| by special enactment to protect slavery in the
Territories. Honor, good faith and patriotism
| demand the most faithful observance Of tho
spirit and letter of our compact.
But" we are asked by our able and cour.
teous cotemporary, The MisSissippiGR
| should the first handful of squatters in 4
| Territory arrogate to themselves the au,
| thority to drive out slavery from the Ter,
ritories''-in other words, should the people
of Territory defy the Constitution and tram.
| pie on the law, and resist the authority of the
United States, and should that authority prove
| incompetent to subdue the nullifiers and re.
bels-'is it not the duty of the Federal Gov
| eminent to intervene through all its depart
| ments to interpose and prevent the wrong OF
apply aremedy p To this we reply, that, as
L Ill. .f ,l.ka
the law, usurp powers which are specially
denied to them, refuse to obey the mandates
of the judiciary, and sanction the destruction
or robbery Of the property of their fellow
citizens, the Federal Government has the
power now to punish rebellion and nullifca-
ton in the Territories just as it has the pow
er to do SO in the States. Hitherto, the inha-
bitants of the Territories have quietly and
| legally obeyed the law, have not attempted
any 'tuRfriendly legislation" have not mani
| tested any desire ''to drive slavery out Of the
| Territories OF exercise any power TO which
they are not constitutionally entitled, and have
never questioned the binding authority Of the
judgments of the federal Judiciary. In short
our territorial system, as practically carried
out by peaceful, law-respecting American
citizens, illustrates its own success. When
it proves to be failure, it viii then be time
enough for us to consider by what better sys-
| tenn it can be replaced.
1t is as unwise as it is untrue to attempt to
draw distinction between slave property and
any other species of property, and to require
| the passage of special laws for the protection
of the former. Slaves are property Just as
money, household furniture, cattle, or silver
spoons, are property. The federal courts will
@bo 80
do to all other property, and those are ample
for the purpose and if territorial legislature
should attempt to pass laws hostile to slavery,
the federal courts would treat such legislation
as void, and apply the proper remedies for the
correction of the evil.
Were We to admit that Congress should in
terfere to pass special laws for the Territories
whenever any man or class of men required
it, the work would be endless. One set of
men might deem the laws for the punishment
of murder, or assault and battery, far too
lenient to afford them sufficient protection for
their lives, and might apply to Congress to
pass other seyerer laws Another set of men
might think that the laws furnishing arson
were two mild another, that the punishment
for theft Of horses or money was inadequate
and they might seyerally require Congress to
intervene. Where is intervention by Congress
to end, when once it is allowed to begin Is,
it with the slavery question alone that it is TO
be permitted to interfere?
The democratic party, irrespective Of sections
or factions-the democratic party of the en-
tire Union-are pledged in the most sacred
manner to resist all attempts at renewing, in
Congress or out of it. the agitation OF the sla-
very question, under whatever shape or color
the attempt may be made" We are bound
to keep that pledge. The democratic party,
irrespective Of sections or actions-the dem
ocratic party of the entire Union-are pledged
to maintain the great doctrine of non-inter-
ference by Congress with slavery in State
and Territory, as embodying the only sound
and safe solution of the slavery question, by
which "the equal rights of the States will be
preserved intact, the original compactS of the
Constitution maintained inviolate, and the
perpetuity and expansion Of the Union in
sured."
We would ask our contemporary to recollect
that during all the time that the slavery agi-
tation continued, both in the halls of Congress
and throughout the country. all that the South
asked or required was NoN-INTERvENTIoN.
Through her senators in the Senate of the
United States, through her representatives in
the House, through her delegates in National
and State Conventions, the South declared
with Calhoun, that "non-action, by leaving
the Territories free and open to the emigra.
ton of all the world, was all she desired
that she demanded no law to give her any adj
vantage in the Territories, but was willing
ITO leave the Territories open to all their
citizens SO long as they continue TO be Territo
ries, and, when they cease to be so, TO leave
it to their inhabitants to form such govern
ments as may suit them, without restriction
or condition except that imposed by the Con-
stitution" We would ask omi Contemporary
to recollect how the Northern democracy re-
sponded to this demand how they fought
and bled, and fell fighting on behalf Of what
they believed to be the rights of the South
how they were driven from place, and power,
and position, and from a majority were driven
into minority because they contended that
the demand of non-intervention by the South
was Just, and ought to be granted. Let our
contemporary turn back 10 the history of this
memorable struggle, and he will find the path
Of the battle marked by the great and GOOD
Northern democrats who sacrificed themselves
IN unfolding the cause of the South. Their
ranks were thinned, they suffered great and
irreparable losses, but they never fsltered or
wayered, or struck their flag. They FOUGHT
hiayely, and without ceasing until thev con-
quereds and is it now, when all Shat the South