The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-01-19
For the National Era.
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

But the great struggle now is for the unset
tied territory of the United States and the
strife is between the white man and the black
man, the freeman and the slave. Shall this
| territory be divided into small parcels amongst
millions Of white men who actually stand in
need of it for homes and means of sustenance
for numerous race of free white people, who
will cause every acre to produce to the utmost
of its capacity, or into immense tracts amongst
few, for the purpose of rearing and increasing
race of negro slaves, to the utter exclusion of
millions and millions Of free white people ?
That is the question.
We say, let the slaves stay where they are
They have room enough already. Too much.
Much more than an equitable share. But let
| them alone. The unsettled territory, every inch
of it, is actually needed for the ,rhite race. 1t
was won by the arms of free men, or purchased
with their money. Not by slaves, nor for slaves,
but the free. 1t belongs to the free, and the
free only will enjoy it.
But, says the stakeholder am free, and a
white man, as well as you, and have an equal
interest with you in this territory. True, and
an equal right with US to occupy and enjoy it.
Yes, he says, and to take my property-my
slaves-with me. Yes, if the lords of the do
main are willing. Not otherwise. A partner
has no right to introduce upon their com.
mon premises whatever species of property he
pleases, without the consent of the rest. One
may have fancy, nay, may ardently desire to
&c L. 81 :.
property, in their common parlor. Will you
say he has right to do this without the con.
sent of the rest, merely because the powder i,
his property, and he has a common right and
interest with the others in that parlor? Why,
the idea is absurd. Your laws, indeed, cons;i.
tute your slaves your property, but they have
no force in the territory that belongs to the
phole free people of ,ae United States. 1t ia
subject only to the laws which they may please
to make. And, supposing, for the sake of the
argument, (which deny,) that you have the
right, without the consent of your partners, to
take your slaves as property to the common
territory-the territory Of the United States
The Constitution of the United States says Mey
are persons; and the Supreme Court has said
they are not citizens, and never can be. To
this decision you subscribe. The Congress of
the United States, representing the whole PEG
pie, has general sovereignty in this territory as
part and parcel of the nation, and has special
power to make all needful rules and regulations
respecting it. Now, supposng, as above said,
you may, by virtue of your States laws constitu-
ting your slaves property, take them with you as
personal appendages to the territory in ques-
ton when they reach that territory, they mus,
as persons, be subject to all such laws as the
United States shall have seen fit to enact re-
speeding the entrance Of persons upon that ter
ritory. Politically, there are but two grand di
visions of persons, viz: citizens and foreigners
all who are not citizens are, for all political
purposes, foreigners. Slaves, therefore, not be
ing citizens are, in relation to the National
Government, foreigners. In relation the States,
they are neither citizens nor foreigners, but an
anomalous class of persons. If this is correct,
and think it is, Congress has the undoubted
right to exclude slaves from the national ter.
ritory, or to admit them under such conditions
or restrictions as it may see fit to impose; for
none will deny that sovereign power may, at
pleasure, forbid foreigners to enter upon ita do
main. Indeed, will not say that Congress has
not the right to prescribe conditions, even for
citizens. I think it has. "Tbe owner of tbs
territory" says Vattel, Chapter VIII, page
l7l-l84S-Chitty's edition. =" may forbid the
entrance into, or permit il on such conditions
as he thinks proper. This IS consequence OF
the right of domain" MARYLAND.