The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-09-28

ask that you mind your own business and
not interfere with us.
THIS UNION CANNOT EXIST HALF SLAVE AND
HALF FREE"
These Northern Republicans tell you that
Slavery is so great an evil that it is their
duty to abolish it everywhere. Now per-
NIT me to remind you that whether any law
Or any institution is an evil or not, is a
question which every people have right to
decide for themselves. 1t may be wise to
have law in one State that it would be
unwse to have in another.
The same laws and regulations, which are
well adapted to the wheat fields of the Gen
esee Valley are utterly untitled for the sugar
plantations on the Mississippi It may be
safe in New Y FORK, where you have very few
negroes, to give them rights and privileges,
which would be utterly unsafe to give them
in South Carolina, where the slaves out
number the whites more than two to one.
Then let New York choose for herself what
rights she will give to the coIored race in
this State, and leave South Carolina free to
determine for herself the same question.
You must remember that the people of the
slaveholdiDg States have consciences as well
as you; they are presumed to be as intelli.
gent, as honest, and as conscientious as the
people OF the Free States. When we went
into partnership with them by adopting the
Constitution under which we live, we agreed
to recognize them as our equals, and they
on their part agree to recognize us as their
equals. Nor did we of the north then hold
the doctrine that because Slavery was wrong
in one place, it was wrong everywhere, or
because it was unwise in one place, it was
unwise everywhere. say that we did not
advocate any such doctrine when the Con-
stitution of the United States was adopted.
The Constitution under which we live, was
made by thirteen States, twelve of them
slaveholding States and only one free State.
Suppose it had been deemed advisable at
that day to have uniformity Of laws on the
subject of Slavery, and what would have
been the result? Do you think the one free
State would have outvoted the twelve slave
holding States and have prohibited Slavery
everywhere? On the contrary, is it not pos
sible-nay, is it not probable that the twelve
slaveholdng States would have outvoted the
one free State, and thus have fastened Sla-
very by constitutional provision on every
inch of American soil? Ali that the friends
of freedom wanted at that day was, that
each State should be allowed to do as it
pleased, and that the Federal Government
should not interfere with the question.
That principle was recognized in the Fed
eral Constitution. Now, let US inquire
what has been the result: since the Federal
Constitution was adopted, New York has
abol ishcd slavery, and so has Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jer-
sey and Pennsylvania. Thus, you see, that
six out of the twelve original slaveholding
| States have become free since the Constitu.
tion was adopted. Under what principle
was it that these States achieved their free.
dom? Did they do it under an act of Con-
gress? Did Congress abolish slavery for
you in New York? or in Pennsylvania, or
iu any other State? Would you have per-
mitted Congress to interfere in your domes,
tic relations? Cries of, No, no."] Then,
l repeat, by what authority did your people
of New York abolish slavery and adopt
free Institutions? A voice, "By the au-
thority of her people" Cheers. You did
it by the authority of the doctrine of Popu>
lar Sovereignty. You did it in pursuance
of that great principle which authorizes the
people of every State and every Territory
to adopt their own institutions, make their
own laws, and change them at their plea
sure. Under that principle the free States
have increased from being one ofthirteen to
a majority of all the States in the Union.
Did you find any body in the North anxious
to make sectional question and allow a
| Presidential election to be determined on,
so long as the North was in a minority and
the South was in majority? Suppose that
the Southern States, when they had ma
! jority of eleven in the Union, had raised the
| slavery question and made Presidential
election turn upon it, what chance would a
Northern man have had? Would we of the
North have thought it kind or consistent
with those relations which ought to exist
among brethren for the South merely be-
cause it had the power to exercise that
power over Us? We of the North kept still
about Slavery aud about sectional agitation
until under the doctrine of Popular Sover-
eighty we become the majority section, and
no sooner did we become the controlling
power of the Union than you find leading
politicians appealing to sectional prejudice
and sectional passion against the Southern
people and Southern institutions in order
to have Presidential election determined
by geographical line. l ask you, citizens
of New York, are you willing, merely be-
cause you have got the power, to exercise
It now in a manner that you would have
deemed oppressive and unjust when you were
in minority. For one, |, never will con-
sent to the, formation of geographical or
sectional parties. l will stand by the warn
ing of the father of bis country in his fare
well address, when he cautioned US against
geographical lines and sectional parties as
dangerous to the peace of this Union.
/. E91 How can we expect to maintain those DO