The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-08-22

! The Constitution of the United States does
not create a government with sovereign pow
err. and property is subject alone to the control
| of a government having such power. Such
| control is an important attribute OF soVer-
eighty. Indeed, the protection toproperty is
| the strongest ligarnent of government Inc
government created by the Constitution is
| limited. 1t must look to the Constitution
| alone as the charter of its power, and all ITS
action must be confined within the limits
there prescribed. Then no power OF property
within the States is to be found. rms was
not one of the evils of the articles of conied-
Grafton, which gave rise to the formation OIL
the Constitution.
| But it has been contepded, and doubtless
will be urged again, that although this be true
as regards the States still Congress has I'M
| limited power to IegisIate for the Territories.
| We shall not now controvert the claim oil
power; it is no part of our present purpose
But suppose it be possessed, the question is,
| how may it be exercised? We answer, IL
must be in strict subservience to the prlncl-
ples of the Constitution. Congress cannot,
by any legislation, defeat, qualify, enlarge or
subvert, one principle contained IN that lnstru-
ment, because they are cardinal principles OF
| our Union. They constitute the being or es-
sence of Congress, as an organized body, and
limit its official power. The principles of
government embraced in the Constitution
pervade the whole Union; they are universal
Every man in every State has common in-
terest in having them faithfully observed
| The Territories are common property, sub
iect to be occupied by the people from any
portion Of the Union, in the same freedom
| thew enioyed in the States, both as to their
persons and property. If power to legislate
| for the Territories to the extent claimed Is
possessed, it may be exercised without limit,
unless that limit be found in the Constitution.
| Legislative power, within the meaning of the
| Constitution, is limited power, confined to
particular subjects, which can only be exer-
| cised in subordinatlon to certain great princi-
Piles. That is the extent to which legislative
power is conferred on Congress; all beyond
| it is usurpation Suppose there should be
slaves in any of the new Territories, would
an act of Congress prohibiting slavery pro-
duce immediate emancipation Such would
be the effect of unlimited power to leglslate.
| Has Congress the power to say what is or
what is not property in the territory belong
| ing to the people of the United States, or to
regulate the amount they may acquire, or to
| take from the citizens there that which they
really possess? Such power does not belong
to anv regular government on earth. We re-
peat. that no power has been given to Con-
eress over property within the States, and nc
mower can be exercised over it in the Terri
i tories. detrimental to the unqualified rights Of
their owners. As well might Congress pre-
scribe an established religion for the Terrific
ries, and require every citizen and emigrani
to conform to it. That is legislative power IL
its largest sense, but it is not the description Of
| legislative power conferred by the ConstItu-
ton.
Thus stands, as yonr committee think, the
claim of right asserted for Congress. Nor are
these i'll founded pretensions IN the least
strengthened by the asserted equality OF the
African with the white man, and the conse-
ouent conclusion that he is not, nor should
he be regarded as property. No one, whose
will and voice entered into the Declaration Oh
Independence, or the National Constitution,
believed that the Africans IN service were born
the EQUALS of the Caucasian race. The PEG
ple of the North do not now believe it. They
treat the negroes amongst them not as equals
in any sense, but as degraded beings, tar below
them in the scale of creation.
Slavery has existed in all ages of the world,
and amongst all nations, savage or civilized,
with very few exceptions. 1t originated, not
in positive or statute law, as has been SAID
it must exist, if it exist at all, but by UNI
versal law Of conquest, which the God Of
Nature gave to his highest work, to hold do
minion and power over the inferior things OIL
his creation Where, we ask, is the munlc-
ipal, or positive law, as it has been called, that
authorized the founders of the Jewish empire
to hold slaves? By what law was 1T that the
African was bought and sold, and held Ill per
petual bondage, in classic Greece and Imperla
Rome? And by what authority was it tina
the continental nations OF modern Europ'
engaged so largely in the slave trade? 1t wa
by that universal principle OF DOMINION which
constitutes an element in the nature OF man
impressed on him by his Creator.
Even England, which now boasts that Il
touch English soil is to break the shachles o
slavery, was once dealer in slaves. Wher
{ did her iayorite virgin queen find an act 0
Parliament which authorized her to share tn
profits of an expedition in the slave trade
There was no positive law which authorized
it. nor did law of prohibition originate il
the Parliament house British Judges usurpet
the power of the legislature, and declares
that universal freedom pervaded English soil
, and we have reason to fear that their exam
| pie will find followers in our own land. Tht
right of property in slaves has met universe
recognition. We derry that the service tt
which the negro is subjected with us, is al
injury to him or detriment to us. To clothe
feed and protect them, and compel them b,
moderate labor to earn such subsistence ant
T care, is to do for them what they would no
do for themselves. All experience has shown
that their best, their happiest and most ele
waited condition is in servitude. Out OF II
they degenerate into vice and ignominy whicl
degrade the form they wear. 1t is the plac
assigned them by the God of nature in tn
great scheme of creation.
But the people Of the Northern States d
not stop at asserting right to abolish SLAYER.
in the Territories. They seem to hold in ut
ter disregard, that the provision in the Consti
t tuition which authorizes the owner to recap
, ture his fugitive slave wherever he may b
, found. This is provision which can adm
, of no dispute, and its violation can admit c
/ no excuse. This is not fidelity to their gov
eminent, which is one of the duties of Chris
| tianity, in the name of which they profess
: act. How unlike the example set them b
} the Apostle Paul in sending home to Phile
/ mon his runaway slave, imploring for hin
: forgiveness. We lament their misguided yea
their false philanthropy, and in the name {
7 our common country we implore them to be
f ware, lest they drive us to extremities whic
/ will be fatal in their results. 1t is not fo
= them to determine whether slavery is bles
sing or curse to u.s. That question We re
3 serve to ourselves. And whilst they ma
2 profess not to interfere with it here yet W
cannot be mistaken as to the ultimate en-
which they desire to accomplish.
IL G. Al. ~ H. lor
: Congress, with entire unaninity, have give
: the history Of the progressive encroachmeni
on our rights, and have pointed out the evil
: to be apprehended. As faithful sentinel
: they have warned us of approaching danger
0 and are entitled to our appreciation. As CT
/ lzens of Southern State it becomes US
t vindicate the sovereignty of that State, and
: is proper that the whole South should az
: with unanimity.
: The Legislature of Virginia, in Marcl
b 1S47, passed resolutions condemning tt
z Wilmot Proviso and asserting the rights
Y the South; and again, in January, 1849, b
n an overwhelming vote, re-affirmed the resoll
s lions of 1847, and passed others, protestlr
/, against any action of Congress on the slaV
l. trade and slavery an the District Of Cottnsbt
= Those resolutions clearly set forth the C6nst
t, tatioraL rights Of the South, and we aro@
If qive them our most unqualified coHcurrence.-
i We cannot but regard any legislation by Cor
gress, either past or to come, which in an
l. degree, either directly or remotely, may see
) to give sanction to the authority of that bod
it over the subject, as uoid for rant Of pore
- and in its tendency destructive Of the pranc
n pies of the Union which should be held invi
/ liable. But whilst we thus broadly assert OIL
l. Constitutional right, it will be with our pc
n pie to say whether they will meet our bret
d rem Of the North in good faith, should it
of rendered, in carrying out the Missouri Con
d promise; not as 70 matter of intrinsic obllg
> ton, but by common consent of the people,
r We deny, most positively, its legal validity
r an act Of legislation. A Constitutional pril
r chile admits of no compromise by CoDgres
l. To compromise was to assert and exerci
Of the right to do so, and the consequent right
N legislate on the subject which we utter
IS deny.
l. Your committee have thus endeavored
ID mint out and maintain our rights, and
d Show the extent of the injury threatened, b