Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-09-12
assistance from patriotic portion of the North the
measure was ultimately defeated.

claimed; and also that slavery could not go into
Territory, or anywhere outside of a saveholdlng
State without law establishing the right. On the
other hand, our friends, North and South, densed
the power of Congress- and also insisted that the
Federal Constitution recognized slaves as property,
and any citizen of the United States could go into
any Of our Territories open for settlement and there
hold his slave property By ciatue Of the Conststa-
ton. Here, then, were presented two important
points of difference which, in fact, involve the
whole question At this point in the controversy,
the doctrine of non-intervention was proposed,
which was. that Congress should neither prohibit
nor abolish slavery; and the other point the con-
stitutona question: was left for the Courts to de-
terminc. On this basis the question was settled
Instead Of a law of Congress to prohibit SLAYER
forever, proposed by Abolitonists, it was So b.
mitted to the people Of the Territory to form and
establish their own institutions in thelI own way
subject only to the Constitution OF the United States
and this was called popular sovereignty" As
thus explained many distinguished statesmen ad-
vocated non-intervcnion" and popular sovereign
ty," and all the speeches recently quoted touching
this subject are to be understood precisely in the
manner the questions are here exp'a ned But
shortly afterward another misunderstanding arose.
One side contcnled tina. the territorial. government
could at any time exclude slavery; The other held
that no exclusion prohibition of slavery could be
made until the time when constr ution was right
fully made for admission into thu. Union; and for
this position two satisfactory and conclusive reasons
were assigned, to wit:
1st. That the right to settle the question Of slave
rv conceded to the people of the Territory, and
not to the territorial governu ent established by Con-
grcss, which government could only have such pow
as Congress could righ:ully grant; and that the
people never could act in their sovereign capacity
until they came to form their Constitution.
I'd. That the power in the Territory, by whomso-
ever exercised "subject to the Constitution of
the United States and that by virtue of it the
right existed to take and hold slaves in the Terri
tory of which the people could not be deprived
neither by Congress nor by the Territory during its
existence as Territory.
In the debate which followed this dispute it was
distinctly and enequivocay stated by Gen. Cass
and Judge Douglas that if the Constitution gives
the right to hold slaves in the Territory there was
no power on earth to take it away-neither Con-
gress nor the territorial authorities. See appendix
Con- Glcbe 34th Congress, fist session. page ~
The question was permitted to remain, awaiting
the decision of the Supreme Court to determine this
controverted point and it was agreed and under
stood by both parties that the Judgment of the Court
should be adhered to as final and conclusive. Not
merely that it should end the particular case before
the Court, for that is necessarily so but that the
questions determined by the Court should be deem
ed settled.
In 1857 the Judgment of the Court was pro-
nounced, and the opinion of that high tribunal eX
pressly determines that the Federal Constitution
does of itself give and secure the right to every ct
to take and hold any species of property known
to the Constitution, including slaves, into the COM
mon Territories; Also that Congress has no power
to impair that light; and, also, that much less
could the territorial government destroy that consti
tutional right, for it could only have such power
Congress granted to it, and Congress could not
grant power which is not possessed by itself
This supposed to end the whole matter, and
the country reoiced at the prospect of peace on the
slavery question: while at the same time, solution
was had which promised to secure the rights o. ALL
But unfortunately for the peace of the country and
the harmony of the Democratic party, the subject
not permitted to remain at rest The South
had been fully vindcated Gen. Cass and such pa
trots were content, but, for some cause, Judge
Douglas has revived the whole controversy with in
creased bitterness and animosity 1t now threatens
a serious disruption of the party, and, a conSe-
quencc, the triumph of black Rcpubcansm with all
its attendant evils. The people, and the people
only, can avert the danger
lie now holds in violation of the agreement, and
in utter disregard of the opinions of the Supreme
Court, that the territorial government can, by legal
means, exclude slavery directly PennSyl vania
and then demands to know how the South is going
to help herself unless by having congressional
"slave CODE Thus, You will perceive that his
course has given rise to the whole clamcr about a
"Siavc code" i'nt the conservative men Of the
ton do not intend to be driven from their sense of
proprlety by any such clamor. All that VIC ask is
that adequate protection be given for the purpose of
securing existing constitutional rights Nobody
wants more than this. Nobody asks Congress to
Intervene" on the subject Of slavery so as to give
rights of property and Of location not already pos.
scsscd but we 10 require that CIR present consti-
tutional rights shall be protected against wrong
doors and maefectors. If the courts have sufficient
power. under the laws of the land, then nothing
more will be required; but if the Territories acting
under the advice and encouragement of Judge Doug
las, should Eterpose obstacles and destroy our pres
ent rights, then it will be the duty Of Congress to
interpose within the limits of its authority Is this
asking too much? Would any citizen be content
with less? Government is designed for the protcc-
ton of all citizens in the enjoyment of their rights,
OF person and property; and whenever and where
ever necessary to that end its power ought to be
exerted. This is the doctrine of Breckenridge; but
Douglas denies it. and would veto law designed for
that purpose; and consequently, shall support
Breckenridge and oppose Douglas, however much
respect him personally will here present a "a
miliar case by way of Illustration. Under the Con-
stitu.ion we have right to reclaim fugitive slaves
For many years this recognized right was sufficient
until evil-dsposed persons attempted to defeat and
destroy that right Then it became necessary for
Congress to intervene" by passing law, ap-
proved by George Washington, affording remedies
to enforce the right
Now, it is decided that the same Constitution
gives the ght to the people to take and hold their
slaves in the public Territories. IT, therefore, any
one attempts to destroy that admitted right it will
be the duty of Congress to provide the necessary
remedy to secure this right in the case of fugi-
tive slaves, which the Father of his Country ap-
proved. Here again, may add, Breckenridge agrees
with us, and Douglas opposes.
But it is contended by good friends of Douglas,
against whom have not one word of censure, that
the platform adopted at Charleston and amended by
the Wcklifie resolution at Baltimore, for Douglas,
places him on the same ground with ourselves on
the subject of protecting constitutional rights That
this assumption is an evident mistake will appear
from few facts about which there can be no con-
| troversy
First. If it were true that Douglas, on his plat
form, occupies the same ground with ourselves. why
did they not accept our platform rather than force