Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-30
SUNDAY. sEPTEmBER 80, 1860.
The nutY of Protection.

AhShuAy VI dlc IcuSIAA 0UfEiIHitIt 10 pfOlcCb
he life, liberty and property of its citizens wherever
its constitutional authority extends, or its lawful
power reaches Is one Of the cardinal principles of
she Democratic creed The right of the citizens to
assert and demand this protection is correlative
with the duty of the Government to extend it. With
out this cOrrelative right and duty Government
would be worse than mockery-it would be a des-
potsm. In the decision in the DRIED Scorr case, the
Court says:
"Tbus the rights of property are united with the
rights of persons and placed on the same ground bv
the nth amendment Of the Constitution, which pro
vides that no person shall be deprived of life liber-
ty, property without due process of law; but an
act of Congress which deprives citizen of the Uni
ted States Of his liberty property merely because
he came himself or brought ms property into par
ucular Territory of the United States and who had
committed no offense against the laws could hardly
be dlgnifed with the name of true powers of law"
The right to property is as sacred and inviolable
az the right to life and liberty, because if Govern
ment may deprive the citizen of the one it may de-
spoil aim Of the others. And again if despotism
may rob the citizen of his possessions and continue
to do so, as he accumuates them, it has the power
to take the bread out of his mouth and the spring of
his movements from his control thus depriving him
at of his means of living and his unrestricted
liberty The right to destroy is not one of the pre-
negatives of Government, but the duty to pro-
tect is its chief aim and attribute Therefore
the right claimed by the Black Republi-
cans, to abolish exclude slavery from
the Territories is not correlative with the duty to
protect the same in the Territorial domain of the
United States. The former is gross and tyranni-
cal violation Of the first objects of all Government
Federal and State imperial and Republican: while
the latter is fulfilling the mission and design of ev-
cry just Government, which is to throw an aegis
over all who live under it. And so the doctrine of
unfriendly legislation, or non-acton by the Terrific
rial Legislature with reference to anv species of
property carried into the Territories, is q covert
and insidious mode of avoiding the great duty of
protection or contravening it, and when necessary
should be overruled by the legislation of Congress
to secure the citizen in his rights These promo
sitons seem plain and indsputable tIatits scarce
ly Unnecessary to elaborate them. They are principles
which lie at the very basis of good Government and
cannot be denied without violence to our institutions
themselves, and without striking fatal blow at the
lntrenched rights Of the humblest citizen as well as
OF the most powerful and prosperous. If Govern
ment may discriminate 10 destroy or to damage one
species of property, it may damage or destroy all
property whenever it finds convenient pretext or
opportunity. Ifitmay strike down youIInegro prop
Nery itmay destroy your title to your landed estate
your cattle or your household goods If it may de-
grade the Southerner because he owns slaves it may
deny him protection to all the products ofhis slave la
Dor, his cotton, sugar and stock. Thus one species
OfprOperty rendered odious, entering wedge to
waste and desolate the South, to aggrandize the
North, and to establish in the language of the De-
claration OF Independence, ian absolute tyranny
over these States" But we are told by distinguish
ed BELL Hector Col PEYToN) that the Constitution
the decisions Of Che Supreme Court and the common
law, like coat of mail sufficiently protect the
stakeholder in the Territories of the United States
and this is asserted in the face of the fact that in
consequence of the unholy, 'agitations and incen-
diarisms of the AboliOnists of the JolIN BRow raid
Of the murders and arsons in Texas of the nulica-
ton and forcibe violation of the fugitive slave
law in the Northern States, and of the defiance Of
the South by Northern Governors, slave property
is to-day, more dangerously .assaed and more per
sistently imperied than any other property on the
face of the earth. What if Northern men were
told that they must go into the Territories where
law and order more uncertain than in the States
and where lawless adventures abound and must
rely upon the Constitution, the decisions of the
Courts and the common law to protect their
horses, their cattle and their goods. Would they
not reply that such protection is solemn
mockery, and would they not demand positive
law and imposing force to protect theirrights wher
sssailed and imperiled slave property has been
imperied? Would they not regard the man as an
unsafe counsellor who would wish to put them off
with the Constitution, the courts and the common
law. Would they not say give MS all the protec-
ton that Government was designed to give? If the
Constitution propriG UigOre and the decisions of the
courts without military or civil force to enforce
them, and the common law, with its GLORIOUS un-
certainty do not protect our rights legisate again
provide an adequate remedy for our wrongs. even
Al 1t be necessary to employ the army, navy and
militia to enforce It, This would be the answer oF
spirited and determined people who know their
rights and knowing dare maintain them"
But Mr.. DOUGLAS thinks differently from Col. Pyy
TON and it is to meet the startling disclosures ana
doctrines Of the former gentleman that the Damo-
cratic party are now insisting upon a reasserton
of the great and cardinal doctrine of protectons
Thinking that Col PErToN, in his zeal 10 discredt
his doctrine, may have lost sight of the declare
hons of Judge DOUGLAS, we present him with the | ,
following extract from Mr.. DIS Freeport speecb =
We trust he will ponder it well before he again so
emphatically asserts the suficency of tho Constu
ton, the courts and the common law: {
IT MATTRRS NOT WHAT WAY THE ST. t
IRENE COURT MAY HEREAFTER DECIDE AS '
Az IhE ABSTRACT QUESTION, WHETHER q
S : flt1 MAI OR MAY NOT GO INTO A TER
-. 81 y OIi UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE PEG
I, &c n A. y lie LAWFUL MEANS TO INTRO
.J oo1 II VI EXCLUDE IT AS THEY PLEASE for Il
- -son ma slavery cannot exist a dav or an =;
- ,,s,ti 49, unessI Is supported by local no
those police regulations csn onI-
$3.50 80 ~ uy Lne local legislature and If tbe /,
Pool'e az OlpoSeG 10 slavery they win aoct re- :
~ mar body who wi bv unf,erd =
e5 5 prevent the H.roductio, 90 = II
into theIr mldst II, on the cont1ar OL II =,
ia their legislation will favor ITS cey are for -
NO MATTER WHAT THE DFC1SIIIo1 Hence II
SUPREME MAY BE on THAT ARSTP5 , VI Of Hl1E 81
TION, STILL THE RIGHT OF TINS 6nS ~ QUtS- N
MAKE A SLAVE TERRITORY or rp,, ~ LIZ 10 =
IS PERFECT AND COMPLETE UNDFP FTF1T4T 4I I
8RASKA BILL Ihope Mr. Lincaa deens ~, I'M &c
swer satisfactory. "n II
But suppose the argument that slavery * s.fR al
cientv protected by the Constitution the court y
and the common law, be sound and tina. there is no
need for additional legislation either by the Terri
toria Legislature or by Congress to enforce the {,
rights of property, then the Democracy do not de-
naud any further legislation. They only ask Con- d
yressional protection to slave property when ne
,essary" according to the Baltimore platform In Il