Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1859-11-30

y York can remove his domicil to the Sta
4 of Ohio, and carry all his property aci
him, and hold It, A citizen of Virgin
II cannot remove to the State of Ohio al
: carry all his property with him, and hold
g He can't do it now; he couldn't do it te
years ago, nor twenty years ago. nor at an
I time since Ohio existed as State of til
c Union. Why is this so? Does not tn
Constitution prevail equally over all til
Union? Does not the very language of tn
second section ef the IVth article Of tn
Constitution of the United States declar,
that ''the citizens of each State shall
entitled to all the privileges and immunitie
of citizens in the several Statcs??"
SLAVERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE con
sTTTUTIoN But ONLY By LOCAL LAW.
Yet We find that citizens of AIassachu
sets possess, and have possessed for ovel
.Jftty gears, certain privileges in the matter
of changing their domicils, which the citi-
zens of Virginia DO not possess. One car
go to Ohio and carry his property, and keer
1t. Tile other cannot. And yet dema-
gogues would have Southern men believe
that no discrimination against their prop
erty ought to exist or erer did erist, and
that to enforce such discrimination in the
settlement of new States, would be to es-
tablish distinction between certain class
es of property which the South cannot in
honor submit to!
If slavery cannot 60 into the Free States
and maintain itself why should it expect
to 60 into Free Territories and maintain
itselEthcre being in either case no local
laws to protect it? Is not the Constitu-
tion of the United States as vigorous, as
comprehensive, and as just in Ohio as it is
in Kansas? Docs it not regard the prop
erty-the rested rightS-of all citizens, in
all places of the Republic, as equally sa-
cred? If slavery is national-if it exists
in the Constitution itself-how can the
Constitution permit an owner of such prop
erty to be despoiled of it in Free State,
any more than in Free Territory? Can
a State be permitted to nullify the rights
OF man in property that is recognized in the
Constitution of the U. S.-and the Fcder-
al Government have no. power to interfere?
Of course not; for the Constitution says
that the United States shall guarantee to
every State Republican form of Govern
ment.' But such a State Government. de-
spelling man of his right, would not be
republican but dcspOtic. 1t is clear that
if slavery be tie rule-ifit be national, fit
':rtsts IN the Constitution, and is carried
wherever the Constitution prevails, that it
S as in Ohio as in Kansas, and as firmly
% be upheld in either, as on the banks of
he Sabine Wherever the flag of the I'm
on floats, there every citizen is entitled to
in oil his rights, that are ma,
iOnal and constitutional. Such would be
he case with regard to slave property, if
lavery is national. il
HE DISCRIMINATION NEVER THOUGHT A
HARDSHIP BY THE SOUTH.
But this is not so. 1t is not claimed
ven by the South. and never has been, that
slave owner has the right to remove with
is negroes to the Free States, and call on
le United States Government to protect g
i'm in his property. Yet his right to 90
} Free State is as perfect, under the I
nited States Constitution, as it is to 90 to G
Free Territory. Was Kansas acquired
y the common blood and treasure of the b
Mon? So was IOwa-and what right D
Is Iowa, any more than Kansas, to dis
inmate against property 50 as to deprive P
&c citizens of any portion of the Union of L
cir National and Constitutional rights? c.
his discrimination against slave property, b
regards emigration into Free States, We N
.vc thus shown has always existed, and id
yer by the South been thought hard G.
ip. And why? Because, perhaps, the
izcns of the Slave States felt that in the
ivilege to rOte on Meir SlareS, the species ii
property had obtained peculiar and 81
advantage over all other prop al
y in the Union, that more than compcn- tn
ell for its one restriction, to-wit: That dc
should not enter into and establish it. ST
in Free States. to
If the South is tired of its discrimina- pl
n against slave property, which has ex- cd
ID since the Government was establish tn
and desires irabandoned, then the south Br
uld propose to abandon. also the priyi- de
es that such property enjoys. Surely it col
,nly fair that property should. in point Go
act, become equal before it claims to go for
equal into the common territory of the 70
ion, If the South decline the one, how Co
it claim the other? jOr
: SOUTH IN HONOR BOUND To THE oRIGI- ate
NAL RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY LAW. yOr
IIr. Bates does not, therefore, regard the not
admission of slavery into the terrific In
of the Union as establishing distinc- in
between property, but simply as main low
ing a distinction already established,
ingly assented to by the South at the Va
nation of the Government, and ever Pro
C. 1t is only at the instance of mis- to
:vous dcmagogucs that the South is now sen