The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-01-19
POSITION OF TIE VICE PRESIDENT


The following extracts from the recent speech
ofVice President Breckenridge, delivered before
the Legislature of Kentucky, at Frankfort, will
convey to the North an idea of what the most
moderate and conservative portion of the South
ern democracy demand Of their Northern
allies:
THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION.
Gentlemen, bow to the decision of the Su.
preme Court of the United States upon every
question within its proper jurisdiction, whether
1t corresponds with my private opinion or not
only bow trihe lower when it happens to do
so, the decision in the bred Scott case does.
L approve it, in all its parts, as sound exposi-
ton of the law and constitutional rights of the
States, and citizens that inhabit them. APP
plause. 1t may not be improper for me here
10 add, that so great an interest did take in
that decision, and Ia its principles being sus-
tanned and understood in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky that took the trouble, at my DUN
cost, to print, or have printed, large edition
of that decision, to scatter it over the State;
and unless the mails have miscarried, there is
scarcely member elected to the Legislature
who has not received copy with my frank.
To approve the decision of the Supreme
Court in the bred Scott case would seem to
settle the whole question of Territorial sover-
eighty, Is l think will presently appear; but,
IN order that no one may misunderstood my
views on that question, L will, with your leave,
dstain you with a brief review OF what was
done as to the slavery question up to the time
of that decision, referring also to the duties i'm
posed by it.
THE MISSOURI LINE.
l was in the Congress of The United States
when that Missouri line was repealed. Ineyer
would have voted for any bin organizing the
Territory Of Kansas, as long as that odious
stigma upon our institutions remained upon
the statute book. voted cbeerfully for its
repeal and, in doing that, cast no reflection
upon the wise patriots that acquiesced in IL at
the time it vas established 1t was repealed,
and we passed the act knowa as the Kansas
Nebraska bill. The Abolition or Quasi Adolf
ton party % the United States were constantly
contending that it was the right of Congress t.
prohibit slavery in the common Territories of
the Union. The Democratic party, aided by
most of the gentlemen from the South, took
the opposite view of the case. Oar object was.
if possible, to Withdraw thet question from the
halls of Congress, and place it where it could
no longer risk the public welfare and the pub
lie interest. In the Congress of the United
States, it had been agitated all the time. TO th,
disadvantage of the South; accordingly, II
have not copy of the bill before me now, but
| remember its leading proyisions) a bill was
passed, repeating the Missouri line, and leaving,
those Territories upon the contract and the
assertion that the bill made. Did we intend
by 1t tc iegislate slavery into Kansas and Ne
braska2 We denied that and denied it upon
the face OF the bill itself. The bill said within
itself, not that we iRtend to legislate slavery
into the Territories, but TO leave the people
free to form their own domestic institutions
liz IN IL
States. That was as much as we could agree.
upon. There was point upon which we could
not agree. A considerable portion of the
Northern Democracy held that slavery was
IN derogatlon of common right, and could onJv
exist by force of positive law They conte,Sad
that the Constitution did not furnish Dat law
and that the stakeholder could not 90 into the
Territories with his slaves, with the Con.,;,,,
ton to authorize him III holding his slaves as
property, or to protect him. The South gen.
orally, without distinction of party, held the
opposite view. They held that the citizens of
ali the States may go with whatever was recog-
missed by the Constitution as property, and eniov
1t. That did not seem TO be denied to any article
OF property except slaves. Accordingly, the
bill contained the provision that any question
IN reference to slavery should be referred to the
Supreme Court of the United States; and the
understanding was, that whatever the judicial
decision should be, it would be bind NO upon
all parties, not only by virtue os the agreement.
but under the obligation cf the citizens to re-
spect the authority Of the legally constituted
courts of the country.
NEBRASKA BILI-UNFRIRYDLY LEGISLATION.
Having quoted passage from the bred
Scott decision, the Vice President proceeds:
Thus, the highest court in the United State
settled the very question referred to il, as the,
disputed point not legislative in its character.
on which Congress could not agree when the
kansas-Nebraska bill passed. The view that
we in the Southern States took of it was sps.
tained-that in the Territories, the common
property of the Union, pending their Territorial
condition, Congress itself nor the Territorial
Government had the power to confscate any
description OF property recognised in the States
of the Union. This court drew no distinction
between slaves and other property. 1t is true,
some foreign pbilanthropists and come foreign
writer's do undertake to draw this distinction,
but these distinctions have nothing to do with
our system of Government Our Government
rests, not upon the speculations Of philanthrop-
&c writers, but upon the plain understanding
OF written Constitution which determines il,
and upon that alone. 1t is the result Of posi
tive law; therefore, we are not to look TO the
analogy Of the supposed Law of nations, but to
regard the Constitution itself, which is the
written expression of the respective powers of
the Government and the rights Of the States.
Well, that being the case, and it having been
authoritatively determined by the very power
10 which it was referred that Congress had no
power to exclude slave property from the Ter
rltory. and judicially determined that the Ter
ritorial Legislatures, authorities created BY Con-
gress, had not the power TO exclude or coufs-
cate slave property, confess that had not
anticipated that the doctrine Of unfriendly Leg
islation would be set up. Hence ! need not
say TO you, that do not believe in the doctrine
of uniriendly legislation; that do not believe in
the authority of Territorial Legislatures TO do
by indirection what they cannot do directly, L
rePose upon the decision of the Supreme Court
OF the United States, rs 10 The point that neither
Congress nor the Territorial Legislature has the
right TO ohstruct or confscate the property OF
any citizen, slaves lncludo3, pending the Terri
torial condition [AppIauss.
do not see any escape from that decision. If
you admit that the question was judicial one
If y'u admit the DECISION Of the Supreme Court,
and if you stand by the decision of tie highest
court of the country.
The Supreme Cont seems 10 have recoO-
Missed 1T as their duty. as the duty Of the courts
this Union in their proper sphere, TO execute
this constitutional right, thus sdjudicated by
the supreme Court IN the following language.
In speaking of the acquisition of territory, thew
pronounce it Political question tor Congress
to determine what Territories they aeouira' and
how many. Now, mark the words of the
court:
And whatever the political department. of
the Government shall recognise as within the
limits of the United States, the Judicial de-
partment is also bound to recognise, and IN ad.