Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1859-11-17
From the st. Louis News.
BATES ON SLAVERY

BATES ON SLAVERY I g.
! Some of the Opposition papers Of Missouri (the
ST. Joseph Hest among them,) while admitting
the indecency Of private citizens, who suppose
themselves candidates for the Presidency, thrust
ing their opinions all questions unasked. on the
country, nevertheless appear to think that the case
of EDWARD BATES is an exception. They claim
that BATES stands so prominently before the COIN
try possible candidate for the Presidency, and
that the anxiety Of MissoIrians so great to de-
clare in favor of him, if his views OH the Slave
Question are Acceptable 10 :hem, that Mr.. Bates
ought 10 make public his views on that one sub
iect at least. Otherwise, many citizens, after com
mittiug themselves 10 his support. might fini them
selves in false position.
There will be no occasion for any citizen ever
fe-iin any embarrassment Oh Mr.. Bates account.
lie Is not candidate for the Presidency, aud
will not seem, by publishing letters unasked, or
every most trihing occasion, 10 be counting at
tention 10 his views.
But if Mr.. Bates should &c made candidate
by the authoritative voice of his countrymen, he
will obtain no vote upon false pretences. He will
stand upon no juegle, like the Cincinnati Platform,
with its ambiguous and double readings. The
country will know his position on all questions,
nanfestly as in letters Of living light. Till then,
Mr.. Bates views on Slavery will not probably be
more formally set forth.
But as the Ereniag Ners, several months ago,
presented the name of Nj. Bates as the favorte
of the ST. Louis 0ppositionists for the Presidency
it is reasonably TO be supposed that we had suffi-
cent knowledge Of his opinions on this and other
subjects, 10 Justify the nomination of him. II may
be that we know enough Of his views, even now,
TO satisfy the more importunaie querists in the
matter. The following are what we are sure will
lie found TO be the views of Edward Bates on the
Slavery Question:
Mr.. Bate, does not believe that .Afr:can SIa-
very is The cornerstone of Libertvt
lie does no. believe that African Slavery is
beneficial Institution, either in Social Political
or Religions sense. Not III 4 Social sense be-
cause il s,s al nlught the family relation and sep
aTaes man and wife. parents ard children, at the
caprice, or on the necessities of owners: Not in
Political sense, because il is productive Of dis
cords between nations that tolerate it, and nations
that do not; and because it is liable 10 pancs,
commotions, instructions, and massacres, and has
ended often IN bloody revolutions: Not in Re-
lIsIous sense, because II shuts the mind against
knowledge, makes the word OF God sealed book
TO the Slave, and gives his body 10 the service Of
human master; whereas. the body Of every ere.
a;ed being should be freely given 10 the service of
God.
Because Mr.. B der does not believe that Slave
ry IS beneficial Institution, either in a Social,
Political or Religious sense, he Is uuaferqbiq op,
posed 10 lis crtcns;on into Territories already free
Mr.. Bates, IN his political creed, is a Henry Clay
Wing; and Mr.. Clay declared that his ..right arm
should drop from his shoulder before he would
vote 10 extend Slavery over one foot of Territory
already free" Mr Bates heartily endorses that
sentiment, and holds TO that creed
Mr. Bates does not believe that the Constitu-
tion, by its proper vigor carries Slavery INTO all
the Territories that may be acquired by the United
States. He believes fiat Freedom is the rule. and
Slavery the exception. He does not believe that
Slavery can.exist in any Territory acquired by the
Government of the United States, except BY The
posiiire idD Of Congress. That positive law Mr..
Bates would not be in favor Of passing because
for reasons already given, he is opposed to the
extension OF Slavery into Territory already free.
II it be held that this exclusion of Slave prop
erty from Territory ''acquired by the common
blood and treasure of the Union" establishes an
invdous distinction between two sections of the
Union-that 1t denies TO the South rights that are
phaically that it has any such effect The dis !
tincton complained OF is co-eval with the govern
ment. II is new thing-no modern hardship, .
in fact no hardship at all. The iocali.ing VI Sla-
very-the prohibition of lis emgrating and csta5- I
fishing itself in Free Territory, was embodied in /
the compact ol the Union, at the beginning But
for this limitation the Slave States got tar more
than an equivalent in being allowed IN the Nation-
al Congress and in Presidential elections three roics
for crcry fire sl1res. Slaves do not vote, but their
masters vote for them. The votes of t,ro men IN
the South count as much as the votes Of fire men /
in the Free States.
Why should this be SOP If Slaves are only prop
erfy, as the Southern man viii say, why should 1
not the Northern mans property vote also. 1t is /
all only property. When the Stakeholder is dispo-
sed 10 complain, therefore, that distinction is .
made against him-that he can't go into the COM +
mon Territory OF the country and take his prop
crtv, the citizens OF the Free State reply: "It /
is mol property like my property that You wish to
take. but 1t IS property that r5cs 1t is property that
gives you tr0-dRi-d-half votcs TO my One-it Is
property that makes me inferior 10 you, in our re-
latons 10 the Federal Government; and that not /
fair when we come 10 occupy what has been
bought by ''the common blood and treasure of the
Union"
This distinction between Free property and
Slave property is, as before stated, as old is the
Constitution itself. If there were no Territories
a' All, lne same uisuhcuoh "ouu east n eti-
zen of New York can remove his domice TO the
State of Ohio and carry all his property icith him
aud hold IL. A citizen of Virginia cannot remove
to the State of Ohio and carry all his property |
with him and hold it. He can't do il now. He
couldn't do it ten years ago, nor twenty years ago.
nor at anv time since Ohio existed as State of
the Union. Why is this so? Does not The "on-
stituton prevail equally over all the Union?-
Does no. the very language of the Second Section
of the IVth Article of the Constitution of the u
nited States declare that sthe citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immu-
mites Of citizens in the several States?'
Yet Fe find that citizens IF Massachusetts, pos
sess, and have possessed for fly yeurs, certain |
privileges IN the matter Of changing their domeis,