Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-03-30

VsVtfopfftbf
flr Congress the power to protect slavery in the
territories we take the Republican side Of the ques
ton. This assumption is not warranted by any
Thing we have written, and needs ether refuta-
tion than the drawing proper distinction between
the power to protect aud the power TO establish OF
prohibit slavery. The Republicans declare that
Congress has the power TO prohibit slavery in the
Territories; this we deny upon the broad ground
that Congress has no right under the Constitution
b say what Is, and what is not property in the
States or Territories. That which was property at
the time the Constitution was adopted Is property
STILL and as slavery was recognized as property by
the Constitution, at the time Of its adoption, andns
it confers no discretionary power upon Congress to
declare the contrary, it is absurd to assume that
such power exists. But since the. Constitution
declares that Congress shall have power to make all
nscdful rules and regulations for the government Of
the Territories and that instrument was in part,
designed for the protection of the property and
rights of the citizen outside Of the States, we can
imagine grosser sbsurdity than the denial OF the
power Of Congress to protect the property of a
southernei in the common territory Of the United
States
The legitimate, constitutional Legislature of the
Territories is Congress; bat its power over them is
protective, not creative. What ID recognized as
property in the States whence the territorial settlers
emigrated. Congress has no power to prohibit but
Is bound to protect and If Congress has no such
power, il can confer such upon the territorial
Legislature This Is the doctrine Of the Opposition,
aud he who advocates any other denies the rights
of the South in the Territories and eectually bars
the extension Of slavery.
But what ia the Republican doctrine, on this
subjeet7 That Congress has the power to'establish
or abolish slavery in the Territories, and that il il
Its duty 30 sboish IL. Surely opinions on the sans
question, not b. further apart than are those o.
the Opposition. and Republican parties. Yet oui
nsighbor strangely coniounds the two opinions
making them not merely analogous, but Synonym
GUS The power to protect does not imply the power
to abolish or establish though the latter necessarily
embraces the former power.
But what is the democratic doctrine2 and how
does it differ from the two doctrines just coatrastcd
Non-intervention, absolute, unconditional is th'
democratic theory of the powers OF Congress owe
Territories. No power TO protest, establish o
abolish slavery; and % the party, in the bewilder
ment incident TO error, claim that the Territorial
Legislature can protect establish, or abolish SLAYER,
that the creature has more power than the crea
tor--that Congress can confer upon another body
power which il does not possess itself. This pro
position is too absurd to demand on adverse argu
ment but to what practical result does it lead P
BY taking from Congress the power to protect slave
ny in the Territories and coniering sovereignty upo
native and alien squatters the same end is reache
which the Republicans are striving TO attain b
claiming for Congress the very same power whie
the democrats claim for squatters. This is not
mere superstition. The democratic theory has bee
fairly tested in Kansas and the result is the exclu
sion of slavery, and Just effectively as if the Re
publican theory had been reduced to practice in tia
Territory What theu is the inference? Simpl
that democracy and Republicanism are synonyme
and that both bring about the same results
practice.