Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-09-12

claimed. and also that slavery could not 90 into
Territory. or anywhere outside of slaveholding
State, without law establishing the right On the
other hand, our friends, North and South, den,ea
the power of Congress, and also insisted that the
Federal Constitution recognized slaves as properly
and any citizen of the United States could go into
any of our Territories open for settlement and nere
hold his slave property By cirtue Of me Cons.aeu
ton Here then were presented TWO Important
points of difference, which, in fact, inVolVe tue
whole question. AT this point IN the controversy,
the doctrine of non-intervention was proposed,
which was that Congress should neither pr0n. o,
sttutional question was left for the Courts to de-
termine On this basis the question was settled
Instead of law of Congress to prohibit slavery
forever, as proposed by Abolitionists it was sub
mitted to the people Of the Territory to form and
establish their own institutions in then own way,
subject only to the Constitution of the United States
and this was called popular sovereignty" As
thus explained, many distinguished statesmen adj
vocated "non intervention 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 explained. But
shortly afterward another misunderstanding arose.
One side contended that the territorial government
could at any time exclude slavery; the other held
that no exclusion or prohibition of slavery could be
made until the time when constitution was right
fully made for admission into the Union; and for
this position two satisfactory and conclusive reasons
were assigned, to wit:
lst That the right to settle the question Of slave
ry was conceded to the people of the Territory and
not to the territorial government established by Con-
gress, which government could only have such pow
er as Congress could rghtfully 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 was "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 by the Territory during its
existence Territory.
In the debate which followed this dispute it was
distinctly and enequyocally 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-nether Con-
gress nor the territorial authorities ISee appendix
Con. Globe saith Congress, first session, page 79l
The question was permitted to remain, awaiting
the decision Of the Supreme Court to determine this
controyerted 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
cd 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 c
to take and hold any species of property known
to the Constitution including slaves into the COM
mon Territories; also, that Congress has power
to impair that right; and, also, that much less
could the territorial government destroy that consti
tutonal 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 was supposed to end the whole matter, and
the country rejoced at the prospect of peace 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
was not permitted to remain at rest The South
had been fully vndicated; Gen. Cass and such pa
triots were content but, for some cause, Judge
Douglas has revived the whole controversy with in
creased bitterness and anmosity II now threatens
a serious disruption of the party, and as a conse-
quence, the triumph Of black Republcansm with all
its attendant evils The people, and the people
only, can avert the danger.
He 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 as directly as Pennsylvania
and then demands to know how the South is going
to help herself, unless by having a congressional
"slave code" Thus, you will perceive that his
course has given rise to the whole clamor about a
"slave code" But the conservative men Of the ma
ton do not intend to be driven from their sense Of
propriety by any such clamor. All that we 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 Ct slavery so as to give
rights of property and Of location not already pos
sessed but we do require that our present const-
tutional rights shall be protected against wrong
doors and maleactos IL the courts have sufficient
power, under the laws Of the land then nothing
l.. i - Il m
under the advice and encouragement Of Judge Doug
las should nterpose 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 protec-
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 IA
miliar case by way Of illustration. Under the Con-
stituton We have right to reclaim fugitive slaves
For many years this recognized right sufficient
until evil-disposed 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, 1t is decided that the same Constitution
gives the right to the people to take and hold their
slaves in the public Territories IT. therefore, any
attempts to destroy that admitted right it will
be the duty of Congress to provide the necessary
remedy to secure this right as 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 conteaded by good friends of Douglas,
against whom / have not one word of censure, that
oda az
the Wicklfe 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-
troyersy
First. If it were true that Douglas, on his plat
form, occupies the same ground with ourselves, why
did they not accept platform rather than force
division on that subjectS
Second lonolas and some Of his friends danonnca