Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-05-23
members Il the tvo Houses and ask the particular

"That the CONSTITUTION ana all laws OF the Ohi.
ted States which are not locally inappca6le sha!i
have the same force and effect within the said Terri
tory of Kansas as; elsewhere within the United
States except the eighth section Of the act prepars
tory to the admission Of Missouri into the Union,
approved March 6, 1920, which, being inconsistent
with the principle of non-interventon by Congress
with slavery in the States and Territories as recog-
nized by the legislation Of 1850. commonly called
the compromise measures. is hereby declared mop.
erative and void; it being the true intent and.
meaning OF this act not to legslate slavery into any
Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way subject only to the Constitution Of the United
States."' - ...-...----
The Missouri line was repealed; and why? Be-
cause it vas unconstitutional or wrong in itself
No, sir but because it was Inconsistent with the
principle. Of non-interventon by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories"
admit, if the act had stopped there. there might
have been some pausbillty in the argument out
what is the conclusion?
Provided That nothing herein contained shall
he construed to revive or put in force any law or
regulation which may have existed prior to the act
of 9Th March, 1920, either protecting, establishing
prohibiting, or abolishing slavery"
That is Congress would not only not interfere IT.
self; would not only not allow its own statutes to
stand in the way, but would not revive any old law
which might have been in force by which slavery
was protected in that Territory Is it not perfectly
clear that the whole purpose of the act, and Of the
party at that day. to free Congress from all leg
slaon over the subject Of slavery in the Territories
whether by wav of protection, or establishment or
prohibition and leave the Territory free to act as the
Constitution permitted it? remember we'll how
that clause came to be inserted in the BILL During
the discussion, it said, by gentlemen who OPP
posed the bill, that if Congress simply repealed the
restriction the result would be that the old Louisiana
law establishing and protecting slavery would he
revived To meet that argument this clause was
introduced, became part Of the bill, and received
the support of every friend of the bill who voted
for it in both Houses Of Congress.
submit, therefore, that, upon fair construction
of that act YOU can come to no other conclusion ex
cept that Congress intended to abnegate the exercise
of any power this question in the Territories,
and to deny its purpose to egislate whether to es
tablsh prohibit or to restrict or protect slavery
in the Territories; and in 1854, in platform,
expressly declared the doctrine. non-intervention
with slavery in State or Territory. and in the Dis
trict of Columbia" Where did that leave it Con-
gress left it. of course in the States to the States
in the Terrtories-there being no law of Congress
left for that repeal removed the last act of Congress
which bore upon them-it left it unaffected in any
way by congressional legislation; and in the Dis
trict Of Columbia slavery had already been estab-
lshed, and was protected by law, so that it left it
there untouched l say this declaration received
the unanimous assent Of all the States represented
in the Cincinnati convention. happened to be
member of that conventOn-the only convention of
the kind which believe ever had the honor of be-
ing in; and may have little personal pride in
that matter, but am very sure am not mistaken
when say it was unanimously adopted by all the
delegates there assembled, alike from the North and
the South. We also, out of abundance Of caution
to meet the views of our opponents voted that eve
~ new State should be admitted with or without
slavery, as it pleased.
Then, Mr.. President, where do we stand? The
Democracy of the North and the South agreed upon
this principle of non-intervention. If there ever
was compromise made under this government that
was one Each side surrendered something We
surrendered our claim to protection; our northern
friends abandoned the Wilmot proviso, and every
thing looking to it, and met common ground.
Though was not an original party to the agree
ment. am bound to it by my acquescence; and
hold that neither section can honorably depart from
it without great pressing necessity which does
not now exist
know it is said that the bred Scott decision has
modified the question confess do not think So
I fully agree to the decision in the sense in which
the Senator from Mississippi explains it; but let
test it for q moment in this way: in that decision
the court says the Missouri compromise line or the
Wimot proviso, is unconstitutional. Granted; but
suppose they had decided the other way, and said it
was constitutional, wonld the northern men have
had right to cone forward and say "ths question
being settled in our favor. the Supreme Court hav-
ing admitted that the Wilmot proviso is consttu-
tional now want to 60 in for intervention against
slavery? | am sure every Democrat in the South
would have said at once, though you have this
power, you not bound to exercise it." Well
suppose the court decided that Congress have the
right to protect, and not to prohibit honora-
bly, and fairly, without great pressing necessity,
abandon the policy of non-intervention? l think
not.
Now, is there any such necessity? The Senator
himself admits that there is not. His colleague
(Mr Brown insists that we ought to have slave
code congressional legislation the subject but
the Senator from Mississippi to whom am reply
ing says that there is no such necessity at this time.
Then why depart from the principle of non.inter-
vention? am free to admit that if in an unwise
moment, a man makes compromise that is ruinous
to him, he may, under great necessity avoid it,
perhaps; but deny that any such necessity exists
in this case; and the highest evidence Of it is that
the Senator from Mississippi, who sits behind me,
(r. Brown) has been striving for the last three
four months to get positive act passed to protect
slavery in Kansas, and he has never yet found a
second for it. If any one Senator upon this floor
notwithstanding the urgent and eloquent appeals Of
that gentleman, has declared his willingness to vote
for it. have not heard hun say So and do rot be-
lieve there is such one. And yet everybody
knows that Kansas has lately refused all protection
to slave property. If gentlemen, therefore. Intend
to stand up for all their rights to the fullest extent
why not at once come up and pass law to protect
slaves in Kansas? They show, by their conduct
that they do not believe that any real necessity ex
lists in fact for departing from non-intervention.
say, then, Mr.. President, that in my judgment
no necessity exists for an abandonment Of the com
promise; but the Senator proposes to make de
claration that shall do it in future contingency
I have no doubt of the power of the government
but why make that declaration? A declaration o
the Senate binds nobody These are naked resolu
tons; they not laws; they carry no force to tn
country except what may be derived from tn
soundness Of the opinions advanced in them. The.
will not control the action Of the courts They viii
not perhaps, change the opinion Of single man il
this country. Why pass them? l think shall
show, before take my seat, some very valid an
strong reasons why we should not do so. o.