Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1860-06-02

not anu ulu not CONFER s,upop tue 4terfltoVthi
Legislatures, We of the South held that
Congress had npt,thc powcr,to exclude, and
could notdelcyate pnw6r they did not poss-
ess--also, thutthe people hat not tho power to
exclude under the Cohstitution, and therefore
the mutual agreement was to tuke the subject
out of Congress, aud leave the question of
the power Of the people where the Cpnstitu
ton had placed it-@ith the Courts, This is .
the whole of it, Tho question in dispr!- T.,
Il Judicial one, ana no uct of Cone IS, nor
any resolution of uny pavty, 1onver ton can
in any way affect 't unless we first ,abandon
the position Of uon, intervention by Congress.
But it sep&s exceedingly strangeto me,
that t.: people of the South should at this
L ,e day, begin to fnd fault with this, North
ern cunshuctiom as il is teruned-- ESPECIALLY
since the decision of the Supreme Cb,rt, ia
the case of Drcdd Scott. In this CONNECTION,
l may be permitted to say, that h;kc read
with deep interest the debates Of the Charles.
ton Convention, and particularly the a9c, log
ic,l, and eloquent speech of the Hen VIM
l.. Ianccy, of Alabama. 1t was, decidedly,
the strongest argument have seen on lis side
of the question But its greatest poytr was
shown limits complete answer to itself. Never
did man, with greater clcarncss, dcmastratc
that Squattcr Sovereignty" the bug ear of
| the day, is not in the Kansas Bill all tht has
been said to the contrary, Notwithstanding.
This he put beyond the power of rcfJation
But he stopped not therc-he weut q, aud
/ by reference to tie decision of tho Sbremc
! Court alludcd to, he showed, conclusitly, in
nlost pointed aud thrilling climax, tat this
NEST flightful doctrine could not BY bSsibil-
Rity, be in it, or many other TerritoYiA bill
that it is Constitutional impossibility.l With
the same master hand Inc showed that te doc
trinc ct "Squnttcr Sovereignty is nd in the
Cincinnati Platform; then, why shoui we of
the South now complain of non-iDtcrintion,
or ask a change of Platform
What else have we to do but to insiI upon
our allies to stand to their agreement? Mould
it not have been much more natural ! look
for finching on their side than ours ? why
should we desire or want any other PAform
of principles than that adopted at Cincb bati
If those who stood with us on it, in ty con
test Of 1886. are willing to stand on ii why
+ ,nould we not be equally willing? brn
lte cannot sec, unless VIC are de3rrnLol =,
have quarrel with the North ANYHOW I c,on,
eraI account, If so, in behalf of cIwon
sense, let us put it upon more tcnable rtund
: iThcSc arc abundant. For our own cbS1cter's
. 'akc let us make it upon the aerros,ie acts
e e of our enemies, rather than any S,bnosrd
! short comngs of our friends, who 2haje STOOD
. by US SO steadtastly in so many Constitutional
, struggles. La the name of patriotAm and
: honor let us not make it upon poipl Which
Fmay so directly subject us to the cb,r,o nf
lsp'lGhted fnth. Whatever may befalhs lnt
Gus ever be found, by friend or foo, rs kood Ms
!; ! our word These are my views, FRANKLY and
and earnestly given.
The great question, then, is, Shall we stand
ny our prlneipsHf, or shall We, cuttipy loosc
from our moOrng where VIC have been safely
anchored so many years, launch out again into
ulkhown seas, upon new and perilous adyen
lures under the guide and pilotagc of those
VINO prove themselves to have no more fixed.
ness OF purpose or stability as to objects of
policy than the shifting WINDS ny which we
shall te dLircn! Let this question be dcci-
ded by the CGnTcntlon, aud decided with that
wisdom, cooincss, and forecast which become
statesmen ahd patriots. AS for myself can
say, whatever may be the course of future
events, my Judgment in this crisis is, that we
should stand BY our principles "tlroug gh woe, !"
us well as 6 through veal, . and maintain them
in good faith, now and always, if need be, un-
til they, we, and the Republic. perish together
In common rum. | See no injury that can
possibly ari to us from them--not even if
the Constitutional mpossbility of their con
tanning "Squatter Sovereignty" did not ex
list, as has been conclusiyely demonstrated.
For, if 1T did exist in them, and were all that
ITS most ardent advocates ciaim for it. no scr
Gus practical danger to US could result from it,
Even according to their doctrine, we have
the unrestricted right of expansion to the cx
tent Of population They hold TINT slavery
can and will so, under its operation, wherever
the people want it, Squattcrs carried 1t to
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama
Mississippi and Arkansas, without any law to
protect 1t, and to Texas against law prohibit
"g it, and ;'cy vii carry IL " al totrut.ics
where climate, soil, production and population
will allow These are the natural laws that
will regulate it under non-intervontion accord
Ing TO their construction; and no act of Con
Sress can carry it into any Territory against
these laws, any more than it could make the
rivers run to the mountain, instead of the sea-
Ii we have not enough of the right sort of pop.
uation to compete longer with the North in
the colonization of new Territories and States,
this deficiency can never be supplied by any ,
such act of Congress as that now asked for. 4
The attempt would be as vain as that of Xcrxes
to control thG waters of the Hellcspont by
whipping them in his rage.
The times, as JOl intimate, d. indeed por-
tend evil. But have no fcais for the il si-
tuition of slavery, either in tho Union or out
of it, if our people are but true to themselves
true, stable and loyal to TX d principles and
settled policy; and if they are not thus true,
have little hope of anything good, whether
fI,nY -. =