Delaware inquirer. (Wilmington, Del.) 1859-18??, 1860-02-04

-
cannot permanently exist in the same Union
that the sectional warfare must continue 1
Rage and increase with increasing fury until th
+ free States shall surrender, or the slave State
shall be subdued. Hence, while they appealt
the passions of our own section, their objec
is TO alarm the people Of the section, and driv'
them TO madness, with the hope that they will
invade our rights as an excuse for some Of OH
people to carry on aggressons upon their rights
appeal to the candOr of Senators whether
this Is not fair exposition Of the tendency o
the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican
party. The creed of that party is founded up
on the theory that, because slavery is not de-
sirable in our States, il is not desirable any
where because free labor is good thing with
US, it must BIO the best thing everywhere. In
other words, the creed of their party rests up
on the theory that there must be uniformity in
the domestic institutions and internal polty OF
the several States of this Union. There, in my
opinion, is the fundamental error upon which
their whole system rests !, in the Illinois
campaign, asserted, and now repeat, that uni
formity in the domestic institutions of the diff
ferent States is neither possible nor desirable.
That is the very issue upon which conducted
the canvass at home, and it is the question
which desire to present to the Senate. re-
peat, that uniformity in domestic institutions
!
desirable.
Was such the doctrine of the trainers of the
Constitution wish the country to bear in
mind that when the Constitution was adopted
! the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve
Of which were slayehoding States, and one
n free State. Suppose this doctrine of uni
iorinity on the slavery question had prevailed
in the Federal convention, do the gentlemen
on that side of the House think that freedom
would have triumphed over slavery? Do they
| Imagine that the one free State would have
outvotcd the twelve slavcholding States, and
thus have abolished slavery throughput the
land by II constitutional provision? Tn the
contrary, If the test had then been made, il this
dnctrine of uniformity on the slavery question
! had then been proclaimed and believed in,
with the twelve sayeholding States aginst one
free State, would it not have resulted in a con-
stituional provision fastening slavery irrcyo-
cably upon every inch Of American soil, North
MS well as South? Was II quite fair in those
days for tho friends of free institutions to claim
that the Federal Government must not touch
the question, but must leave the people of each
State TO do MS they pleased, until underline OPP
Grafton of that principal they secured the ma
iOrity and then WELD that majority to abolish
slavery in the other States of the Union?
Sir, il uniformity in respect TO domestic in-
stituiions had been deemed desirable when the
Constitution was adopted, there was another
mode by which it could have been Obtained
The natural mode of obtaining uniformity was
TO have bl0tted out the State governments, to
have abolished the State Legislatures, to have
conferred upon Congress legislative poweroyer
the municipal and domestic concerns of the
people of all the States, as well as upon Fed
eral questions affecting the whole Union and
il this doctrine of uniformity had been enter
tanned and favored by the trainers of the Con-
stitution, such would have beeR the result.
But, sir, the trainers of that instrument knew
at that day, as well n we now know, that in
country as broad as this, with SO great varie- |
ty of climate of soil, and of production, there |
must necessarily be corresponding diversity |
OF institutions and domestic regulations, adnp- |
ted TO the wants and necessities of each locali-
w. The trainers Of the Constitution knew that \
the laws and institutions which were well |
adapted to the mountains end valleys of New |
England were ill-suited 10 the rice plantations |
and the cotton fields of the Cnrolinas. They |
knew that our liberties depended upon resery-
ing the right to the people Of each State to
make their own laws and establish their own |
institutions, and control them at pleasure,
without interference from the Federal Govern
mcnt. or from any other State or Territory, or
any foreign country The Constitution, there
fore, was based, and the Union was founded,
on the principle of dssimilarity in the domes-
tic institutions and internal polity OF the sew
eral States The Union was founded on the
theory that each State Ind peculiar interests,
recurring peculiar legislation, and peculiar in
stitutions, different and distinct from every
other State. The Union rests on the theory
that no two States would be precisely alike in
their domestic policy and institutions.
Hence | assert that this doctrine of uni
formity in the domestic institutions of the diff
fercnt States is repugnant to the Constitution,
snbyersiye of the principles upon which the
Union wGs based, revolutionary in It's chnrac-
ter, and leading directly to despotism il 1t is
ever established. Uniformity in local and do
nestle affairs in IL country of great extent is
lespotism always. Show me centralisn pre-
scribing uniformity from the capital to all of
lis provinces in their local and domestic con-
Germs, and will show you despotism as odions
and as nsufierabe rs that of Austria or OF Ma
Piles. Dssimilarty is the principle upon which
The Union rests. 1t is founded upon the idea
that each State must necessarily require differ
emit regulations that no two States have pre-
cisely the same interests, and hence do not nced
precisely the same laws and you cannot account
for this confederation of States upon any otner
principle.
Then, sir, what becoms of this doctrine that
slavery must be established in all the States or
prohibited in all the States? lfwe only con-
form to the principles upon which the Federal
Union was formed, there can be no conflict
It is only necessary 10 recognize the right Of
the people of every State to have just such in
situations as they please, without consulting
your wishes, your views, or your preJudlcesi
and there can be no conflict.
And. sir inasmuch as the Constitution OF
the United States eonfers upon Congress the
mower coupled with the duty of protecting
each State against external aggression, and in
asmuch as that includes the power of suppress
sing and Furnishing conspracies in one state
against the institutions, property, people or
government of every other State, desire to
carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us
such law as the Constitution cohtemplates
and authorizes, and will show the Senator
from New York that there is a constitutional
mode of suppressing the "irrepressible con-
aict.n will open the prison doors to allow
conspirators against the peace OF the kepus-
lie and the domestic tranquility of our states
to select their cells wherein to drag out mis-
cradle life as punishment for their crimes
against the peace of society.
Can any man say to us that although THIS
outrage has been perpetrated at Harpers Ferry,
there is no danger of its recurrence Sir, is
not the Republican party still embodied, Or
ranizcd sauguine, confident of success, and
defiant in its pretensions? Does il not now
hold and proclaim the same creed that it did
before this invasion? 1t is true that most OF
its representatives here disavow the acts OF
John Drown at Harper's Ferry lam glad that
they do so am rejoiccd that they have gone
thus far; but must be permitted to say to
them that II is not sufIiciet that they dsavow
the act unless they also repudiatc and de-
nounce the doctrines and teachings which pro-