Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-05-11
The Tennessee Resolutions.

The Tennessee Resolutions.
AS there exists a very wide sprcad msap-
prchension Us TO the fate Of 'the Tennessee
Resolutions" in the Charleston Convention,
some suppcsing them to have been adopted and
that they now constitute L part Of the platform,
We feel it TO be our duty to explain their exact
position before the Convention at the time Of
adjournment.
The Tennessee resolutions arc as follows:
|. Resolved, That all citizens Of the United
States have an equal right to settle with their
property in the Territories. and that under the
decisions Of the Supreme Court, which we re-
cognisc as an exposition fthc Constitution, nei-
thcr their rights Of person or property can be
DESTROYED or impaired by Congressional or Ter
ritoria legislation.
ID Resolved, That two-thirtlS vi all the
electoral votes Of the United States shall be re-
Qurcd for nomination.
The first resolution was decided to be oat etOr-
der by the President, and the second, as apper-
tanning to tic then business Of The Convention,
namely, The nomination Of candidates, was de-
c:ded in oyd.r and was adopted. So that the
questions involved in the first Of the Tcnnes-
see resolutions have not been acted upon and
are still before the Convention.
The first Of the Tennessee resolutions was
not adopted, and in our opinion never should
be adontcd 1t is of that character Of plat
form against which all parties North and
South, Douglas and anti-Douglas, are emphati-
cally pledged. It is ambiguous, equivocal
and uncertain, and every prominent man of
either section at Charleston declared against
any such platform.
The first resolution can never be accepted by
the South without an abandonment Of the
principle of protection-becausc, while it t!c-
mics the right Of Congressional or Territorial
legislation to destroy or impair property in
slaves, it does not assert the duty Of Congress
or the Territorial Legislature to protect slave
property from the violence Of individuals. 1t
is 4 mere declaraory resolution which cln-
braces no sanction should its provisions be
volatcd-it is rs though the Legislature Of
Virginia should declare the killing Of Il man
to be murder and not provide punishment
for the crime Under this Tennessee rcsolu-
tion the violence OF mohs may more ellectually
destroy and impair property i'll slaves, than
either Congress or the Territorial Legislature
can possibly do.
If the decisions Of the Supreme Court"
recognize the duty Of protection, why not as
scrt this duty i'll the resolution: The Southern
States claim that the "decisions Of the Supreme
Court" do embrace the doctrine of protection.
Mr.. Douglas denies that protection is any
where to ho found in the decisions of the Su-
preme Court. Can both stand OH this rcsolu-
ton without equvocation, ambiguity and un
certainty.
The resolution provides ''that all citizens Of
the United States have All equal right to settle
with their property in the Territories. Does
Mr.. Douglas understand slaves, under the Con-
sttution Of the United States when in the Ter
ritorics, to be property" On the 30th page
Of his Harper'S Magazine article, he says
"That slave, within the meaning Of the
Constitution is q person held to service or la
Dor in one State undcr the laWs thereof not
under the Constitution of the United, nor by
the laws thereof nor by virtue Of any Fcde
raj authority whatsoever, but under the laws Of
the particular State where such service or labor
may be due"
| So that slave found beyound Estate
where such service or labor may be due" and
not aJugitire is not Il STARE, and consequently
not property.
! The Southern States include slaves under
the word property but Mr., Douglas does not,
unless local laws make them property Here
again is ambiguity, equivocation and uncertain
ty.
The Southern States, including their slaves
under the term property, by the adoption of
this resolution affirm that Territorial lcgiSla-
turc can neither impair nor destroy that pro.
perty. But Mr. Douglas on page 81 OF his
Harpers Magazine article clnphatically aitirms
'that the people Of the Territories should de-
eide tho slavery question for themselves
rlIKorGn THE ACTION or THEIR TERRITORIAL
| LEGISLATURES.
Here is not only ambiguity, equiv"cati"n
and uncertainty, but contradiction between
| the two sections Ol Tie democracy.
The Tennessee resolution constitutes ''the
decisions Of the Supreme Court as an expo
sition Of the Constitution the decisions Of
the Supreme Court being ioundcdin judgments
and opinions of ncn, arc changcablc with the
men who constitute the Court; while the prin-
ciplrs of party, which claims the Constitution
| for its guide. should never be measured by the
sliding scale CT CllancelIors foot" The
doctrine OF protection is not derived from 'fhc
decisions Of the Supreme Court" but from
the SAINT Instrument which constituted the
Conrt II has been rccDgnIzcd by tic Court,
but would have existed as equally obligatory
had il been denied by the Court
"rhc drcisii"ns ol the Supreme t"nrt -
What decisions. ll,c nrcd Scott decisnr was
that bred Scot VAS free negro, and not
| citizen of lhe United Stales; but Chirl Justice
Taney, in pronourcing the decision, laid down
very sound principles uron which the decision
was founded These principles the Southern
States rcgard aS recognizing the constitutional
obligation vr protection Ia slave property
But does Mr.. Douglas give the same recognition
to the opinion Of the Chief Justice that is
given by the Southern States: unqncs'ionably
not. lie regards the opinion of the Chief
Justice rs confined to the case Of .tHghire
shires, and the doctrinc Of protection "to the
owncr in his rights TO reclaim his slave prop
erty" On page - Of the llarpers Magazine
article, after quoting from the Court, Judge
Douglas says;
"The rights Of the owner, which it thus lliy |
the decision o! tic Cour;) made the duty ol tic
Federal Government 10 guard and protect are