The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-02-02

some sophistry. Why does he not speak of the,
admission of slavery by positive enactments !?
Why not even of the power of the people 10 en-
clude it by law? We look in vain for light in
Harpers' Magazine, land is it indeed true, what
Judge Black intimates, that that article is one
of the obscurest documents by which ever poll
tician attempted to befog his followers p but
we may gather Mr.. Douglass real opinion from
another manifesto preceding this. In his New
Orleans speech, delivered after his recent sue
cess in Illinois, he defined his position, in sub
stance, as follows: " The Democracy of Illinois
hold that a STAKEHOLDER has the same right TO
take his slave property into Territory as any
other man has to take his horse or his mer-
chandise"
What? Slavery is the creature of local law,
and yet STAKEHOLDER has the right to take his
slave property into Territory before any local
law has given him that right? A slave does
not become free, when voluntarily brought by
his owner upon the soil of Territory where
no positive local law establishing slavery exists.
How is this possible How can even the elastic
mind of Democratic candidate for the Pres.
dency unite these contradictory assumptions !?
Applause. And yet there it stands, and
nothing that Mr.. Douglas ever said can be
more unequivocal in its meaning And here
again we may claim the privilege of drawing a
few logical deductions from Mr. Douglass own
premises. If, as Mr.. Douglas distinctly and
emphatically tells US, STAKEHOLDER has right
to take his slave, as property, into Territory,
and to hold him there as property, before any
Legislation on that point is had, from what
source does that right arise? Not from the
law Of nature, for the right to hold a slave is
unfounded in the law of nature, and in the
unwritten and common law" and even Mr..
H. l.
and her laws, will hardly dare to assert that
the system of slave labor is the natural and
normal condition of society. 1t must then
spring from positive law. But from what kind
of positive law? Not from any positive law Of
a local and municipal character, for there is
none such in the Territory so far. Where is its
source, then? There is but one kind Of posi-
tive law to which the Territories are subject
before any local legislation has been had, and
that is the Constitution of the United States.
If, therefore, Mr.. Douglas asserts, as he does,
that a STAKEHOLDER has right to take his slave
as property into a Territory, he must, at the
same time, admit that in the absence of local
legislation positively establishing slavery, the
Constitution Of the United States, the only valid
law existing there, must be the source OF that
right. What else does Mr.. Buchanan assert,
but that slavery exists in the Territories by vr-
Tue Vi reueTdl CONSTITUTION w mere IL,
then, the point of difference between Mr.. Blu
chanan and Mr.. Douglas? Why all this pomp
and circumstance of glorious war? Whence
these fierce battles between the Montechi and
Capuletti of the Democratic camp? Are ye
not brothers?
/ But Mr.. Douglas is a statesman, $50 they are
all, all statesmen,) and pretends that the Con-
stitution does not establish slavery in the Ter
ritories, "6eyond the pOlcer of the people 10 con-
troL ii by lalc." What does that mean2 1t
means that the people of a Territory shall have
the power to embarrass the Shareholder in the
enjoyment of his right by unfriendly legisla-
ton" The right to hold slaves" says he in
another place, 'is a worthless right, unless
protected by appropriate police regulations.
If the people of Territory do not want sla-
{ very, they have but to withhold all protection
and all friendly legislation" Indeed, most
ingenious expedient.
But, alas Here is one of those cases where
the abstract admission of right is of decisive
importance. Suppose, for arguments sake,
slave might escape from his owner in Terri
tory without being in actual danger of recap
ture would that i'll any way affect the consti-
tutional right of the stakeholder to the posses
sion and enjoyment of his property? ! have
already quoted Mr.. Douglass own answer to
this question. "If," says he, slavery exists
in the Territories by virtue Of the Constitu-
tion." THAT is If a Shareholder has right to
introduce has " stare property" achere there as
no other ldIo bit the Constitutional "Men IL be-
comes the Imperative duty Of Congress, 10 the
performance Of 'ohich eveTy member IS bound
by has oath and conscience, and from 1ohich
no consideration Of policy or erpediency can
release him, to prODide by lato such adequate
and complete protection as as essential 10 the
enjoyment Of that important right"
And Mr.. Douglas, after having emphatically
admitted the right of property in a slave, where
that right can spring from no other law but the
Constitution, then dares to speak of unfriendly
| legislation. Where is his conscience? Where
is his oath Where is his honor? Applause.
But Mr.. Douglas says more:
The Constitution being the supreme law of
the land, in the States as well as in the Ter
ritories, then slavery exists in Pennsylvania
/ Just as well as in Kansas and in South Caro-
lima, and the irrepressible conflict is there ~
Aye, the irrepressible conflict as there, not
only between the two antagonistc systems of
| labor, but between Mr.. Douglass own theories !;
not only in the States and Territories, but in
| Mr.. Douglass own head. Laughter and
cheers. Whatever ambiguous expressions Mr..
Douglas may invent, the dilemma stares him
i'll the face, land here put myself on his own
! ground,) either slavery is excluded from the
! Territories so long as it is not admitted by a
special act of Territorial legislation, or, if a
Shareholder has the right TO introduce his slave
/ property there before such legislation is had,
he can possess that right by virtue of no other
but the only law existing there, the Constitution
of the United States. Either slavery has no
rights in the Territories, except those springing
from positive law of a local or municipal char
| IN Ind
admission, the Southern construction Of the
Constitution and of the principle of popular
sovereignty is the only legitimate one, that the
| Constitution, by its own force, carries slavery
xherever it is the supreme law of the land, that
Congress is obliged to enact slave code for
its protection, and that popular sovereignty
means the power of the people to vote for sla-
very, but by no means against it. There is no
escape from this dilemma.
Which side will Mr.. Douglas take Will he
be bold enough to say that slavery, being the
creature of local law only, is excluded from the
Territories in the absence of positive law estab.
fishing it; or will he be honest enough to con.
cede that according to his own proposition in
his New Orleans speech, slavery exists in the
Territories by virtue of the Federal Constitu
ton? He will neither be bold enough to dc
the first, nor honest enough to do the second
re will be cowardly enough to do neither
, Applause. He is in the position of that Dem
ocratic candidate for Congress in the West, who
when asked: Are you Buchanan OF Doug
las MANI" answered, 4" I am" Great laugh
ter and cheers. If you ask Mr. Douglas, I" De
| yon hold that slavery is the creature of loca
law, or that a STAKEHOLDER has the right to in
tr0duce his slave property where there is nj
local law?" he viii answer, {" do" Con
f tinued laughter and applause.
2 Such is Mr.. Douglass doctrine of popular