Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1860-08-04

lelehCe Win tle SUBJECT whatever Nc
= am | influenced in this conclusion b
). the local laws Of the Territory in ques
ton, either natural or artilicial-th
laws of nature OF the laws of man; ane
i tor all the purposes of the present actor
+ | will not enquire what they are i
S either respect. I will stand upon tn
$ true principles of Non-Intervention, il
the broadest possible sense, for N on
+ lntervention's sake, to uphold the fun
damental principles Of freedom, and 70
no other reason; and will leave tn,
: people of the Territories and of tht
States to such rights and privileges az
are their under the Constitution anf
laws of the United States, without ad
dItlon to, or diminution from, such rights
by the action Of Congress-"
!, The Kansas and Nebraska bill, except
IN Its disturbance Of the Missouri line,
contained no new principle whatever,
but copied the same Non Intervention
principle which had been recognized by
Congress, and awaited the judicial CON
struction of the Constitution.
! After the passage of all these meas.
ures, came the Dred Scott decision by
the Supreme Court of the United States,
pronounced after unusual labor and de-
liberation, constituting the Constitution
and the rights of citizens of States in
the Territories, as Mr.. Calhoun and
| ether Southern statesmen had contcnded.
and thus settling the question forever,
for all those who propose to abide by
the Constitution and laws. The sub
stance Of the decision was this:
"The Territory thus acquired, is ac-j
CURED by the people of the United
States for their common and equal bene-
TT, through their agent and trustee, the
Federal Government. Congress can ex-
erclse no power over the rights Of per-
sons, OF property of a citizen in the Ter
ritory, which is prohibited by the Con-
stitution.' The Government and the
citizcus, whenever the Territory is open
for settlement, both enter it with their
respective rights defined and limited by
the Constitution. Congress has no right
to prohibit the citizens Of any particular
state states 9f t5 5 Statss ss .ls.. theiE home
give privileges to one class of citizens
which it refuses to another. The Ter
ritory is acquired for their equal and
common benefit, and if open to any, it
must be open to al upon equal and the
same terms.
Every citizen has a right to take
with him into the Territory any article
of property which the Constitution of
the United States recognizes as proper
ty. The Constitution#of the United
States recognizes slaves as property.
and pledges the Federal Government to
protect it, and Congress cannot exercise
any more authority over property of
that description than it may constitu-
tionally exercise over property OF any
other kind. The act of Congress, there
fore, prohibiting citizen of the United
States from taking with him slaves when
he removes to the Territory in question
to reside, is an exercise of authority
over property which is not warranted IN
the Constitution, and the removal of the|
plaintiff, by his owner, to that Terrific
ry, gave him no title to freedom"
Now, if all had acquiesced in this de-
cision, like good citizens-had yielded
willing and cheerful obedience to its
authentic construction of the funda-
smental law, by the highest tribunal, the
question Of slavery in the Territories
would have been at rest, and the Demo-
cratic party would have been on its way
rejoicing. But, every kind of means
was resorted to to cvade it. Rampant
Abolitionism, more manly than it's ac-
completes in mischief, openly denounced
it and defed it as it is wont to do all
legal obstacles to the consummation of
its own distempered idea-demagoglsm
inflated itself-fanaticism foamed, and
trimming cowardice shrunk around it
and insisted that the question was not
decided; and all these combined togeth-
er, sought to deny to the citizens Of the
slave States the benefit of the decision,
either in theory or practice. =
repeat, the South were satisfied with
Non. Intervention, awaiting in good faith
the decision Of. the Court before this ad-
Indication; since the decision, they would
| have been satisfied with Non-lnterven-
| ton, and the acknowledgment and prac-
tical execution of it, according to its fair
and equitable spirit.
The South did not object to Mr.. Doug
las because of his principle Of Non-ln-
tervention, nor because Of his doctrine
of qualified Popular Sovereignty in the
Territories, as is SO pompousiy alleged; /;
but their opposition to him arises, to say
nothing Of his unfortunate controversy
with the Administration, from his advo-
cacy of what they regard as most rank
and mischievons error, the Squatter
Sovereignty heresy; contending, as he
does, as we have already seen, that not
| withstanding the decision of the Su-