The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-06-13

sional Globe, IN variety of forms, all run
ming to the same thing in substance-that it
was a question for the Supreme Court.
maintain that when he says, after the Su-
preme Court have decided the question, that
the people may yet exclude slavery BY any
means whatever, he does virtually say that it
is not question for the Supreme Court. He
shifts his ground. appeal to you whether
he did not say it was question for the Su-
preme Court. Has not the Supreme Court
decided that question? When he now saws
the people may exclude slavery, does he not
make it question for the people Does he
not virtually shift his ground, and saw that
it is not a question for the court, but for the
people This is very simple Proposition
very plain and naked one''
Again will ask you, my friends. if Won
were elected members of the Legislature
what would be the first thing you would have
to do before entering upon your duties? Stoear
to support the Constitution ofthe United Stqtes.
Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does
that the Constitution of the United States
guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold
slaves in that Territory-that they are his
property-how can You clear your oaths, I'm
less YOU give him such legislation as is ne
cessary to enable him to enjoy that property?
What do you understand by supporting the
Constitution of a State or of the United States?
Is it not to give constitutional helps to the
rights established by that Constitution as NAV
be practically needed Can you, if you swear
to support the Constitution, and believe that
the Constitution establishes a right clear
your oath, without giving it support? Do
YOU support the Constitution if, knowing or
believing there is a right established under it
which needs specific legislation, you withhold
that legislation Do you not violate and dis
regard your oath? can conceive Of nothing
palmer in the world. There can be nothing
in the words support the Constitution, if you
NAV run counter to it by refusing support to
any right established under the Constitution.
And what / say here will hold with still
more force against the Judges doctrine of
'unfriendly legislation How could you, hav-
ing sworn to support the Constitution, and
believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves
in the Territories, assist in legislation INTENDED
to defeat that right That would be violating
your own view of the Constitution. Not on
| ly but if you were to do So how long would
! it take the courts to hold your votes unconsti-
tutional and void ? Not moment.
LASTLY, would ask, is not Congress itself
under obligation 20 give legislative support to
any right that is established in the United
| States Constitution | repeat the question.
is Lot Congress itself bound to give legislative
support to any right that is established in the
| United States Constitution A member OF
Congress swears to support the Constitution
of the United States and if he sees a right
established by that Constitution which needs
specific legislative protection, can he clear his
oath without giving that protection Let me
| ask you why many of us who are opposed to
| slavery upon principle, give our acquiescence
to fugitive slave law? Why do we hold
ourselves under obligation t. pass such law,
and abide it when it passed Because the
| Constitution makes provision that the owners
of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them.
1t gives the right to reclaim slaves, and that
| is, as Judge Douglas says, barren right, I'M
less there is legislation that enforce it,
! Now, sir let it not be said that | am read
ing Republican doctrines here, because these
very passages from the speeches of Mr.. Lin
coin were introduced as discoveries by the
Senator from lllinois-these and the other
passages in relatian to the confusion between
State and Territory. When the Attorney
General had replied to the magazine article OF
the Senator from Illinois, reoinder was is
sued, called 'the rejoinder of Judge Douglas
to Judge Black" in which he says, speaking
of the magazine article:
"In that article, without assailing any
one"-
| He never assails any one
"In that article, without assaiIing any one.
or impugnng any mans motives, demonstra-
| ted beyond the possibility of cavil or DISPUTE
| kxro Co. Al 1IoA II.
ton were true, as commended by Mr. Buchan-
an, that slavery exists in the Territories by
virtue Of the Constitution, the conclusion is
inevitable and irresistible, that it is the imper-
alive duty of Congress to pass all laws ncces-
sary for its protection; that there is and can
be no exception to the rule that right guar
anteed by the Constitution must be protected
by law in all cases where legislation is essen
tial to its enjoyment; that all who conscien-
tiously believe that slavery exists in the Ter
ritories''-
Senators. listen to me now. The Senator
from Illinois stood here last week, hour after
hour and asked what was this new issue
which we weEs trying to force on the party,
and whence 4ssuSx tE----Az nv not stand
said he, on Dis platform Of 1856; why not
take that Cincinnati platform which we agreed
to in 1856? Who is it, he says, that is fore
ing these new issues on the party? | have
tracked him through Illinois. What did he
say in his defense of the Harper's Magazine
article about the necessity of this very reso-
luton in the platform? He says he has de-
| monstrated
"That all who conscientiously believe that
slavery exists in the Territories by virtue OF
the Constitution are bound by their conscien-
ces and their oaths of fidelity to the Constitu-
ton, to support a Congressional slave code for
the Territories"
deny that; but want to show his view
Of what our duty is:
"And that no considerations of political ex-
pediency can relieve an honest man, who SO
believes, from the faithful and prompt perfor-
nance of this imperative duty"
That is Judge Douglas view of our posi-
ton; and yet, hour after hour, he stands up
here and attacks us for doing that which he
says our oaths and our conscences impose on
us, as duty so imperative that it is imposSi-
BILE for us, as honest men, to avoid doing it
He says further, in the same "rejoinder:''
81 also demonstrated, in the same paper,
that the Constitution, being uniform through
out the United States, is the same in the
States as in the Territories-is the same in
Pennsylvania as in Kansas; and, consequent
ly, if slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of
the Constitution of the United States, it must
of necessity exist in Pennsylvania by virtue
of the same instrument; and if it be the du-
ty of the Federal Government to force the
people Of the Territory to sustain the institu-
ton of slavery, whether they want il or not,
merely because it exists there by virtue of
the Constitution, it becomes the duty of the
Federal Government to do the same thing in
all the States for the same reason.
"This exposition of the question produced
CONSERVATION and dismay in the camp of my
assailants"
He just copied the arguments from Mr..
Lincoln's dispute with him, put them into the
Harper's Magazine article, and tells us that
this exposition of his of the constitutional
rights and duties of the States of this Union,
produced CONSERVATION and dismay amongst
his ASSISTANTS Why. Mr.. President, what is
there in this argument which the honorable
Senator from Illinois has copied from those
Republicans who again and again have attack
ed the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States-that under the doctrine of the
bred Scott decision slavery exists as well in
the States as in the Territories; sophism so
bald, proposition so destitute of a shadow
Of foundation, that it was never used by any
man who believed it, but was put forth to de-
ceve those who could not understand the
question.
What is the decision of the Supreme Court
Of the United States 1t is this, plainly and
simply: Congress has jurisdiction over and
power to govern the Territories: the powers of
Congress under the Constitution are limited;
amongst the limitations is prohibition to de-
stroy and impair or contiscate theproperty of
citizens without due process Of law. Slaves
are property, and therefore Congress has no
power to confiscate them, to destroy them, or
to impair the right Of property in them, with
out due process of law. That IS what the
Supreme Court SAYS. What has that to do
with the State Does Congress hgislate for
a State Does Congress govern State p
Is there anything in the Constitution of the
United Ststes prohibiting State rom doing
as it pleases in its own legislation, except
certain list, which is expressly laid down, and
in which is not included this question of slave
ry There are certain prohibitions on the
States in the Constitution, and amongst them
are emitting bills of credit, raising armies and
navies, levying taxes or duties ON Imports, on