The weekly Mississippian., 1860-10-17

condemning John Bell for not voting for the
Kansas bill, and instructing him to vote for
the admission Of Kansas with her pro-slayery
Constitution, or resign his seat as Senator,
were read IN the United States Senate. a
bitter personal debate sprang up between Mr..
I BeTT anu MS colleague, Mr. johnson, upon
| those resolutions. Mr.. johnson charged Mr..
Bell with misrepresenting the people of Ten
nessee, and voting with the abolitionists.
Among other things, Mr.. johnson charged
him with holding the anti-Southern opinion
that Congress had the power 10 abolish slave
ry in the District of Columbia. And in proof
of that charge. he read the extract from Mr.
Bells speech of September II, 1850, on the
bill to abolish the slave trade in the District,
when Mr.. Bell travelled out of the line of his
argument to express the opinion that Congress
had power not only to abolish the slave trade
but also to abolish slavery itself in the District
He read the very extract we have published
in these columns. Mr.. Bell replied at length
to Mr.. johnson. Did he disayow these OBJ
noxious and anti-Southern sentiments? No !
He reiterated them, if possible. in more OBJ
jectionable manner. We will let him speak
for himself The debate will be found in the
Congressional Globe, vol sc, part 1. On the
24th Of February, 1858, Mr.. Bell spoke as
follows, (page 834:)
am explaining the course took under the
circumstances which were referred to by nv
colleague, to show that had long been look
ing to the North.
do not care to refer to the paragraphs
which my colleague read from speech made
BY me in 1850, ON the Compromise measures
OF that period because 4 do not at all repeat
them, as understand them. There may,
perhaps, be an accidental misprint; have not
had time to examine; bm do not tciM to re-
tract any sentiment I then uttered NY COL
league holds me up rs an advocate of the
policy OF abolition in the District of Columbia
as conceding the power of Congress to abolish
slavery in this District / have Just shown |
how many others admitted the power ~
My sentiments in relation TO that subject |
are cited against me to show my abolition |
tendencies, or my disposition to court the |
North. What did | say in those extracts |
which my colleague read yesterday? said
that even if doubted the power, felt bound
/
men who had entertained these sentiments to
such an extent as not to place any confidence
in my own judgment I said it ,oas a desi-
rab9e Object, If ii could be done on safe prfnci
PIES to renaoUe that apple of discord 6et,ceeg the
North and the South, which had given rise to
so much excitementin relation to the question
of the reception or rejection of petitions; that
If it could be done satisfactorily to both sides,
1t would be happy event; but | said at the
same time it could not be done unless you made
some provision for removing the emancipated |
WUuIu II De sale to the surrounding States, I
Maryland and Virginia, to abolish slavery in /
the District of Columbia. Ihold the same SEN
tinsents not0. I do not find the least OCCASION to /
change them.
Thus John Bell, Of Tennessee, the Consti-
tutional Union candidate for the Presidency,
not only held in 1850 that Congress had the
power to abolish slavery in the District of Co
lnmbia, but he re-affirms that or inion in 1858. |
VIII Southern men, by voting for John Bell,
endorse such sentiments? When it was first |
charged that John Bell entertained this OBJ
noxious opinion, his supporters Indignantly
denied it. But when it was proven upon him,
they began to apologize for him.
"Vice is q monster Of such frightfuI mien.
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We FIRST endure, then pity, then embrace"
Now his supporters have the hardihood to
attempt to justify the outrageous position that
Congress has the power to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia.
They claim that Congress derives that power
from the eighth section of the Constitution
which, among other things, says the Con-
gress shall have power to exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
district as may" &c, "bccome the seat of
Government"
The people of Mississippi, as well as the
whole South, have Indignantly denied that
Congress derived any such power from that
section of the Constitution The Mississippi
October Convention of 1849, which was COM
posed Of the leading men of both political
parties, in their address, unanimously ap-
proved, said:
The power of exclusive legislation over the |
ten miles square, purchased for seat of Gov
ernment, and over places purchased for need
full public buildings, so far from being given to
ena2e Congress to abolish slavery in those ,
places, was given to prevent State by State
laws interfering with the constitutional right
Of Shareholders taking their slaves into such I
places, as an example OF its purpose
A State Legislature, if the legislation were .
not exclusive in Congress, might interfere with
the domestic relations and private rights of a
President or of the Senate and House of Rep
or of any of the other officers of
the Federal Government whose duties re- I
quired their attendance residence at the Q
seat Of Government; and especially so when Q
coming from the slave States with their family 4
if the seat of Government should b
happen to be located in non-slaye State. Y
In fact, it is the climax of absurdity to argue !.
That because Congress has exclusive legislative /
Jurisdiction, it can abolish or destroy property.
Congress mas exclusive power to regulate COM
nerce between foreign nations and the differ J
mt States; but can Congress destroy COM O
nerce? The Legislature of Mississippi has 81
Exclusive legislative jurisdiction in this State;
,ut can the Legislature, of itself, abolish "
lavery? Certainly not. That power rests = :
lone with the people, in their sovereign capa- Il
ity. Legislative power, in Democracy like b
urs, though exclusive, is never absolute. Alb u
oluie power necessarily implies exclusive :,
over, but exclusive power BY no means i'm Sc
lies absolute power But it is useless to ar b.
ue such an apparently unconstitutional P
eresy. n.
The people of the whole South stand COM bs
lifted against it. The Mississippi October &c
onvention of 1849, composed as We have said til
both parties, passed a resolution, saying - :.
,at the passage by Congress Of 'any law abol-
hing slavery in the District of Columbia,
o,,d he such breach OF the federal compact
10 make it the duty, as it is the right, of
q slayeholding States, to take care of their as
yn safety, and to treat the non-slaveholding ge
Iatos "a enemies." And then the Union iol
,nyention of 1851, when the State spoke in =. -
II sovereign capacity, said such an act would as
mount to intolerable oppression and justify ab
resort to measures of resistance" III
Mississippi and the other Southern States n,
and pledged to resist what Mr.. Bell said in va
$50, and reiterated in 1858, ought to be th
One At once unless the abolitionists would ge
We up their project Of abolition. Do Missis- IN
ppans stand where they stood in 1S49-51, for
90 they staad with John Bell? Will they oul
q Their own words, back down from the high he
'sssl0n they have taken and vote for John bis