The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-14

/ Democratic creed and Of I'll Kansos Nah,os-
ka bill But says the gonslkut;on tbo oras.
| ton of the right to ho.d slat.s il Tho torr;fo-
nes, kand the consequent rtht to protection,
was referred by provision e the hin to the
Supreme Court and the dais;oo Of tb.t r..
bunal is to this effect na
First Congress has no rozrer tn intarfa,e
with slavery in the Territol;es either far ;ts
/ establishment or abolition.
Second. That power is 1sted exclusively
| in the people of the Territohes when thew as.
semble IN convenIlon Tor thepaIpose of form
| ing State constitution preIffaforv to admis-
sion into the Union.
Third. The Constitute recoon;ses the
| right to hold slave property IS the Terr;teries
as right indefeasible by congress or the
Territories, and places that Roperty, ike every
other species Of property, uS[er the protection
of the courts Of the countrI created for that
purpose, and armed with III sower and an
thority for its execution.
/ The first and second POINTS are correctly
stated !. but we put it i the candor Of the
Constitution if IN the thfd it has given the
| decision of the Court in its full effect and
meaning? What is the language of that tri-
bunal ? "The only powr conferred (by the
Constitution upon Congress- as the poaoer cou-
pied NTH the DUTY of guarding and protecting
the oscner in has rights" This is the decision
of the Supreme Court 70 which we are in
formed by the Constitution the Kansas Ne
braska bill provided that recourse should be
had for decision of the question of right and
duty, and this is all thatthe Southern De-
mocracy ask. They do notask "a slave code,' -
or set of laws of universal application, but
they ask just such protection" for slave
property as circumstances may require when
occasion demands the acton of Congress-
With this decision of the Court before it, af-
firming in unmistakable language, the 'power
and the duty Of Congress to guard and protect
the owner in his rights how can the Con-
stitution unblushingly say that without a
violation of our pledges, and without delib-
crate annulment of the great principle of non
Intervention by Congress, we can neither ad-
init that territorial legislature can lawfully
pass enactments hostile to slavery, nor that
Congress should interrene By special enactment
to protect slavery in The Territories 2'' With
the Constitution, we afiIm that 'honor, good
faith, and patriotism demand the most faith
| full observance Of the spirit and letter of our
compact" This compact as defined in the
Kansas Nebraska bill, is to adhere to the de-
cision of the Supreme Court. which we ar
raign the Constitution for seeking to pervert
and repudAte.
Says the Constitution if the inhabitants OF
Territory 'violate the law, usurp powers
which are specially denied to them, refuse to
obey the mandates of the Judiciary, and sane
tion the destruction or robbery Of the property
of their fellow citizens, the Federal Govern
ment has the power now to punish rebellion
and notification in the Territories, just as it
has the power to do so in the States" But
will the Constitution tell us what can the
courts do unless clothed with proper legisla-
ton, and from what source is this to come but
from Congress And when the decree is rem
defed who is to execute it Mr. Bigler OF
Pennsylvania, answered this question when
he said that it is for the courts, and not for
Congress, to decide all legal questions that
may arise as to the rights qf qffslaye property in
the Territories but ii is not clear that ne
cessity 1iH neuer arise for the interference Of
Congress to erecute right decree Of the
courts" zs
Further, this distinguished Northern Dem
ocrat said "If the rights of any citizen be
seriously impaired, his remedy is in the courts
and not in Congress; but question may arise
behind all these, and that is the question of
executing an established right There may
be case in nhich sotategsr posoer remains to
Congress should be exercised to maintain the
rights Of the citizen as aseertained by the
c0wts.''
The Constitution says it is '"unwise as it is
untrue to attempt to draw distinction be-
tween slave property and any other species of
property, and to require the passage of special
laws for the protection Of the former" To
this we reply that it is the duty of Congress to
provide precisely such legislation as will pro-
tect the property of which the owner is sought
to be deprived. Laws that will apply in one
case, may not be applicable in another; and
we hold that it is the duty of Congress to af
ford such means of protection as the occasion
may demand. The Constitution thinks this
would be an ''endless undertaking." but will
it deign to inform us if it s not the duty O
Congress to protect the lives and property of
citizens without regard tt the labor it in
wolves
So much for the non-intGvention which the
South has required, and br the injustice of
the allegation that in aski1g the protection of
her government against ilIgal encroachments
she has violated any compet into which she
has entered. But we ar told not to press
this issue because
The democratic party, irrespective of Sec
tons or faetions-the democratic party of the
entire Union-are pledget in the most sacred
manner to "resist all atterpts at renewing, in
Congress or out of it. he agitation of the
slavery question, under whatever shape or col
or the attempt may be male We are bound
to keep that pledge.
This is too shallow! Win the Constitu-
ton seriously contend tat the adoption of
this resolution committed the Democratic
party against any other agitation" but that
which looks to unconstitutional aggression
or for unconstitutitional demands VIII it
seriously assert that it hedges the Democra-
cy not to resist the effots of the Abolitionists
to deprive the South ofplain and unacknowl-
edged rights Ifso, tlen the whole question
has been surrendered. If the South has
right to protection against unlawful legisla-
ton in the territories, and it is violation OF
the Democratic platoon to ask such protec-
ton, it is likewise vioation of the platform
to claim any other acknowledged right that is
put in jeopardy; the riht to hold slaves in the
District of Columbia, or the right to repel
aggression upon slaEey in the States. No
sane man ever before asserted that the South
ern Democracy pledged themselves to the ex-
tent of abstaining from agitating for consti-
tutional right, but if tie pledge was given, in
the language of the Richmond Enquirer, ''the
dishonor consists in making it, not breaking
it." But they made 70 such degrading COM
initial The pledge is simply manful decla-
ration of hostility to all the schemes of the
Abolitionists for deIriving the Southern
States of their rights IS co-equal partners in
the confederacy, for disturbing her institu-
tons and for wickedly destroying the peaceof
the country. This isthe pledge Of the Dem
ocratic party, and the Southern Democracy
are prepared to adhere to it.
Says the Constitution:
We believe in the soundness, wisdom, and
constitutionality of our territorial policy
We regard the squatter sovereignty doctrine
as false, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional.
We have faith in the good sense, respect for
law, and love of order of the people of the
Territories, and believe that in the future as
IN the past, they win not attempt to pass
laws injurious to slave property, or yiolative
Of the constitutional rights of their fellow-cit-
iZong. and yua do ma haliaya that there is or