Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-16

the territories but the Tgt or ocef 70 O0 lNe utefe
is different Hng and thisshalldepend upon the viii
of majority Of the territorial settlers. That we have
the right to carry our slaves to the territories and
hold them If zoe can but that if after we get there
the territorial legislature the people, or the mob
shall discriminate against Us or refuse 10 Toteci'0n
By enforcement q lana or shall take our property
away, or not acknowledge our right OF property In
slaves, or shall otherwise render them useless
why, the Government mast not interfere, but we
must submit or help ourselves as best we can TINS
Is fair statement of Popular Sovereignty false
~ called. and il does seem to me Its very state
mem Is enough TO enlist every honest man against a.
The naked doctrine Is that lnhis zoe haze right TO
property IN sleves in territoYz vet If The polcers ia
the territory choose to iRUdde or destroy that right or
render useless that property zoe haze no remedy To
lawyer no proposition could be more absurd TO a
citizen none more shocking, and to candid states
man none more disgusting r-r
To sustain this doctrine of Senator Douglas and his
tooserS- we have to admit at least of four positions
assumptions, each of which il fatal and palpa-
BILE error, and all Of sohcA are neither more nor less
than abolition dogmds.
l. That this doctrine assumes that the title by
which we hold property in slaves ia different from
that by which we hold other chsttel property. But
IN fact our title to slave is precisely the same
everywhere. and especially as members of the Fed
eral Government, as the title to our horse and the
law of the United States which makes it larceny in
the territories to steal thing Of value, makes s
larceny to steal my slave. E
2 Il assumes that special legislation is necessary
to create, at least to preserve property slaves
and that more especially we in the po1Uer of ter
ritorial legislation on this subject am aware that
one or two party leaders Of notUriety from the
South have admitted that slavery is an institution
which depends sorely upon the municipal law of the
place where it exists but this position IL contrary
to all the authorities the subject and contrary
the direct decisions of the United States Courts.
Besides it must be remembered in this connection,
SfIJ0 hav ut ia1
managed to admit almost if not altogether, every
dogma of Freesoilism. | write this in no spirit of
elimination, but only because it is the truth of his
tory. and is in the line of my argument.
Property in slaves is in no sense the creature Of
municipal laws. So far from it do not know of a
single old State in this Union which has ever created
the right Of property IN StdUeS By legislation Certain
ly. slaves brought into Georgia. not only with
out law but against law and the matter far as
creating statutes are concerned stand to this day
We have regulating statutes and that is all precise
Iy as the United States have and must have reglla-
ting statutes in all the territories. Besides If man
convert my slave to his own use even in Georgia, my
remedy for his recovery, is BY THE OLD ENGLISH Ac-
TON OF TROvER. Why? Because negro is a chat
tel, and the actions OF Detinue and Trover REM
EDIEs FOR THE RECOVERY UF CHATTEIS. When a
Southern man emgrates with his slaves to the COM
mon territories, by what law is he protected? By
the Constitution and Laws of the United States. in
Guiding the remedy for the RECOVERY OF CHATTELs,
By the laws of the United States he who steals my
slave in territory guilty of larceny and he who con
verts my slave Is liable TO me in damages for the
in both cases-the slave is by the law Of
the same power, PROPERTY OF VALUE. The Courts OF
the United States are open in the territory for the
administration OF these laws. The stakeholder is
not dependent the territorial legislature for his
title. this remedy but is altogether independent
of both points, because both are recognized and pro
tected by Constitution and law which territorial
legislatures cannot repeal The national flag is the
slaveholderP's POWER AND PROTECTION WHEREVER IT
FLOATS.
But suppose the territorial Legislature should pass
a law against You any how; suppose the Courts
and uries and people should refuse TO enforce the
law IN your favor, but by force execute an uneOn-
stitutional against you? What then? The answer
is easy for
3. This doctrine of Mr. Douglas assumes that there
can be no such thing as Government which does
not protect the citizen, and cannot execute its own
laws. Is the Government to look on idly, and
see its own officers violate its own laws, to the
injury of its own citizens. Has it POWER
to project? THEN 1T is NO GOVERNMENT,
BUT A FARCE Has it WILL TO PROTECT? THEN
1T is MEAN AND OPPRESSIVE, AND ENTITLED
TO NEITHER RESPECT NOR OBEDI .NCE- Has
it the power and the WILL but fails execute either
because the POLICY OF PLATFORM of a dominant PAR
TY forbids it? THEN SUCH A PARTY is MEANER
AND MORE OPPRESSIVE STILL, Is UNFIT TO
ADMIN TER ANY COVER .MENT. AND THE
VERY SALVATION OF BOTH THEGOVERNMErT
AND THE CITIZEN DEMANDS THAT SUCH A
PARTY BE REPUDIATEDBY ALL HONEST MEN
OBEDIENCE AND PROTECTION are reciprocal, and the
first is only due by the citizen when the latter is &C.
corded by the Government PROTECTION to the person
and property OF the citizen is the very object of Gov
eminent. and it is only this condition that obedi
ence is virtue or is obedience crime.
4. But again this doctrine of Mr.. Douglas allows
TO the territorial legislature and people what it de
MES to Congress But now? for the territorial legs
latare is the creature of Congress, and is actually
created by Congress for no ether purpose, than tC
observe tie law and PROTECT the citizens-AL the
citizens in person and property-and when it fail:
refuses TO do this it has defeated the ONLY OBJEC
of its organization. and the General Government
each department in its proper Sphere-must simply
do directly what by its agents, it could not do ind
rectly. 1t seems to me that reasoning cannot be
clearer, or more correct.
But why enter into argument to show that Sena
tor Douglas is wrong? His DOCTRINE IS JUST
AS PALPABLY IN THE TEETH OF THE DECE
SIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT AS THE DOC
TRINE OF SEWARD AND THE REPUBLICANS
Both the power and duty ofprotecon are distinctly de-
cded in both the bred Scott and Amy cases. By his
professions Douglas pretends stand by the decisions
and in the very midst of his professions, advances
doctrines against the letter. language and spirit
of the decisions. He has the same UenOBl that Selcdrd
has but hides it: he approaches the South with the
aoedpoR but cOHcedls Il and deludes with the cry
"a friend is comingI'
WHEN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT FAILS
FROM ANY CAUSE TO PROTECT THE SLAVE
HOLDER IN THE TERRITORIES, THEN AS TO
THE STAKEHOLDER THE GOVERNMENT IS NO
INTERESTED IN SLAVES ARE DISCHARGED
FROM OBEDIENCE TO IT; AND II Mr.. DOUG
LAS, OR ANY OTHER MAN HOLDING HIS
VIEWS, SHALL BE CHOSEN TO ADMINISTER
BE A DECLARATION THAT THERE is NO GOV
ERNMET FOR THESLAVEHOLDER AND EVERY
WORD HAVE WRITTEN AGAINST THE sue
CESS OF REPUBLICAMISM, l REPEAT HERE
WITH ALL THE PERADED EMPHASIS WHICH
INDIGNATION CAN ACQUIRE FROM SEEING
HYPOCRACY ADDED TO WRONG.
Both the parties thus assaultng these decisions,
and through them, the rights Of the stakeholder, are
preparing to elect President in 1860. One of them
even counts an undivided South for the support.
The deusion of pretended friendship is to secure
Southern support, and the real free soiism of doc
trlne is to carry a suficiency of the North
The duty of the Southern people, it seems to me.
is so plain that no man can mistake it. Let as all
ulite-nOt pdrty-but on the laIo. The Kansas
bill can't save 1t has failed, and from that bill
Mr.. Douglas borrows the arguments by which he
attacks the decisions in the bred Scott and Amy
cases. in the manner set forth before. The endorse
ment which the South gave that bill in 1856, might
now prove her ruin. but there is away of escape.
Since that time the Court has settled the lao for u.s. Let
u.s. like good citizens, get Oa doubemeaning Kansas
bills and all treacherous party Platforms and step
on the lao. Here is foundation on which if bul
stand with unity. demagOgues can never embitter.
nor heresies divide u.s. and from which fanatics can
never drive u.s. Here are the decisions of the high
est tribunal in country, declaring that the Viii
mot Proviso and Squatter Sovereignty, and Congress
siona and Territorial restrictions all uncOnsti-
tutional and that no department of the General
Government nor all its departments together, nor
all the agents it can create, have any power over
the institution of slavery Except the po,oer coupled
with the duly Of guarding and projecting the o1oper
in his rights"
What more do we want? How much better can
party and platforms do for US 4? Why any further