The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-03-13

conceded to the Government the right to do
as their agent, only what they themselves wo'lC
do, as sovereign communities, under the sam
circumstances. No presumption, therefore, o
an attitude, on the part Of the Constitution
! hostile to slavery, en- be deduced rom tn
clause touching the African slave trade. Oh
the contrary. the presumption is, that, as thu
, trade was kept open for a while--kept open
, in fact as long as the African supply was need
ed-the sl,veholling States never meant to a
bOllsh the institution; and never could have
consented to set the face Of the GoYerhmen
against it. No doubt the fathers of the
Republic were, many Of them, not all, op
posed to slavery. But they had to frame gov
ernment which should represent not their per-
sonal and private opinions, but the interests o
sovereign States They had to adjust It TO the
institutions OF South Caroliua and Georgia. q:
we'll as those Of : ew England. And they had
the grace given to impress upon it the only at
titude which could conciliate and harmonize al
parties--the attitude Of perfect Indifference.
This, at the same time, is the attitude o
justice. We Of the South have the same right
to our opinions as the people of the North
Tney appear as true to us as theirs appear to
them. We are as honest and sincere in form
ing and maintaining them. We unite to form a
| SVfCI OPO oudH IL DC
| formed? Is it to be asked of us to renounce
doctrines which we believe have come down to
US from the earliest ages, and have the ora.
cles of God? Must we give up what we con-
scentiousy believe to be the truth? The
thing is absurd. The Government, in justice
can only say to both parties: l will protect you
both, will be the advocate of neither.
In order to accept slavery from the operation
of this plain principle ofjustice, it has been
coutended that the right fproperty in slaves is
the creature Of positive statute, and consequent
| ly of force only within the limits of the Iuris.
diction Of the law; that it is a right not recog-
nized by the Constitution oil the United States.
and, therefore, not to be protected where Con
gtess IS the local legislature. These two prop
ostions contain every thing that has any show
ofreason for the extraordinary revolution which
the recent election has consumated in the Gov
ernment Of the United States.
They are both gratuitousi
| a. In the first place, slavery has never, in
any country so far as we know, arisen under
tie operation of statute law. 1t is not muni-
cpai institution-iti is not the arbitrary creature
of the State, it has not spung from the mere
force oflegislation. Law defines, mod fiss and
regulates it, as it does every species ofproperty,
but laW ever erected it. The law found it in
existence, and being in existence, the law sub
jects it to fixed rules. On the contrary, what
is local and municipal in the abolition ofslavery.
The States that are now non slaveholding have
been made so by positive statute. Slavery ex-
lists. OF course, in every nation in which 1t is
not prohibited. 1t arose, in the progress of hu
man events, from the operation of moral causes;
it has been grounded by philosophers in moral
maxms, it has always been held to be moral
by the vast majority Of the race. No age has
been without it. From the first dawn of au
thentc history, until the presant period, it has
come down to US through all the course oil ages
We find 1t among nomadic tribes, barbarian
hordes, and civilized States. Wherever COM
munities have been organized and any rights Of
property have been organized at all there sla
very is seen. If theref,re, there be any pro-
perty which can be said to be founded in the
common consent OF the human race, it is the
property in slaves. If there be any property
that can be called natural, in the sense that it
spontaneously springs up in the history of the
species, il is the property in slaves 1t there be
any property which is founde in principles Of
universal opinion, it is the property in slaves
To say Of an institution, who's history is th us
the history of man, which has always and every
where existed, that it is local and municipal
relation, is of"all absurdties the motiest, the
merest word that ever fooled the ear from out
OF the schoolman's jargon," Mankiui may
have been wrong-that is not the question.
The point is, whether the hav made Slavery
whether it is the police regulation OF limited To-
caIities, or whether it is property founded in
natural causes. and causes ofuniversal operation.
We insist only upon the fact that slavery is
rooted in common law, wider and more per.
vading than the common law of Engand-THE
UNIVERSAL CUSTOM OF MANKIND.
II, therefore, slavery is not municipal but
natural, if it is abolition which is municipal and
local, then, upon the avowed doctrines of our
opponents, two things follow: lst. That slav-
cry goes Of right, and as q matter ofcourse, iuto
every territory from which it is not excluded
by positive statute; I'd. That Congress is com
petent to forbid the Northern States from i'm
pressing their local popularity Of mons slavehol-
ding upon the common soil of the Uuion.--
What would they think, if the South had
taken any such extravagant ground as this?
What would they have done, if the South
had taken advantage OF a numerical majority,
to legislate them and their institutions for ever
out of the common territory? Would they
have s'bmiaedP Would they have glorified the
Union, and yielded to the triumph of slavery?
We know that they would not They would
have scorned the chrochet about municipal and
local laws, which diVested chem of their dear
est rights. Let them give the same measure to
others which they expect from others. 1t is
noble maxim, commended by high anthoiity-
do as you would be done by;
The South has neither asked for, nor does
she desire, any exclusive benefits. All she de-
mands is, that as South, as slaveholding, she
shall be put upon the same footing with the
North, as on.slaveholding--tha the Govern
ment shall not undertake to say, one kind OF
States is better than the other-that it shall
have no preference as to the character, in this
respect, Of any future States to be added to the
Union Non slaveholding may be Superior 10
slaveholding, but it is not the place OF the Gov.
ernment to say SO; much less to assume the
right OF saying so upon principle which, prop
erly applied requires it to say the very reverse
There is another sense in which municipal is
opposed to international, and in this sense, sla-
very is said to be municipal, because there is
no obligation, by law of nations. on the part OF
States in which slavery is prohibited to respect
within the limits OF their own territory the
rights of the foreign stakeholder. This il
the doctrine laid down by Judge Story
No nation is bound to record to a stranger q
righ4 of oflr,rerty which it refuses to It's own
subjects. We cannot therefore, demand from
the Government of France or England, or any
other foreign power. whose policy and interests
are opposed to slavery, the restoration of our
fugitive from bondage. We are willing to con-
cede, Tor the sake of argument, that the princi
pie in question is an admitted principle OF inter.
national law, though we are quite pursuaded
that it is contrary to the whole current OF Con-