Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-05-11

from the south's attempt to settle 1t
by peaceable means, both, however,
being used as pretexts by our brethren
of the north-the one to infiame the
northern mind against us, and the 9TH
er to justify an invasion Of our terri
tory.
The true cause which eventually
brought on that awful conflict is to be
found in the deep seated determination
of the northern states to rule this
country according to their own ideas
and for their political interests, wheth-
er those ideas should conform to con-
stitutional rights and limitations or
not. Sufficient is 1t for present pur-
poses TO refer to the almost universal
opposition offered by the north to the
admission into the Union as a state OF
any territory that seemed to add po-'
litical strength to the south. The rea-
son assigned for this opposition was a
desire to prevent the spread of slavery,
but the true reason Is to be found as l
have just stated. I know Of no more
satisfactory way to bring this home
to our hearts and minds that by quot
ing from letter written about the time
discussion was being had upon the ad-
mission of Louisiana as a state OF the
| Union. This may be taken as a true
| index of the northern mind at that
time and the letter from one Massa-
chusetts statesman to another, cabot
to Pickering) reads as follows:
THAT the influence of our part Of
| the Union must be diminished by the
acquisition Of more weight at the 9TH
| 6r extremity"
However all this may be, the ques-
tions of slavery and secession are so
intimately connected with the causes
Of the war that brief study of those
| two questions will for this occasion,
give a sufficient insight into the other.
l. therefore, ask your indulgence for
brief period while We review:
Q) The attitude of the south with re-
gard to slavery from the Federal or
Constitutional standpoint.
(2) Secession.
(1) The attitude OF the south with re-
gard to slavery from the Federal or
Constitutional standpoint.
1t shall not be our purpose to discuss
the question Of the moral right Of the
individual to hold slaves, for the issue
was not and could not have been fought
out along that line, the north being,
certainly, equally as responsible for
the existence of slavery as the south.
In support Of this we have only to
cite the fact that at the time Of the
adoption of the constitution every state,
with the possible exception OF Massa :
chusetts, recognized the right to hold
slaves. About 1870 there were In the
United States about 100000 slaves dis
tributed. II Is true more largely through
the south than the north, but when we
understand that environment has
largely to do with the habitat OF the
negro, and further, that the north had
most to do with the importation OF
slaves into the United States, the fact
of the larger holding In the south can
offer no argument that the south was
responsible for slavery. But on the
other hand. when we consider that as
early as 1927 there were In the United
States 136 anti-slavery societies with
6.625 members of which 106 societies
with $3.50 members were in the south,
and further that as a colony Virginia
De titioned the Crown to prevent the
slave trade, and that Georgia under
| Oglethorpe prior to 1852 prohibited the
importation of slaves, and again that
South Carolina had a similar law prior
| to 1909, we have affirmative evidence
of the fact that the south was never
welded to the institution Of slavery.
| And again when we see South Carolina
repeating her law prohibiting the slave
trade I'm 1903 because Of the impossi-
bility OF enforcing the same against the
violations of the law by northern slave
traders. we also have evidence OF the
determination of our northern friends
to ignore the moral issue so long as
the business of dealing in human lives
should prove profitable.
Indeed so unanimous was the south
in its desire to abolish the trade that
only three southern votes were regis
tered against the proposition when a
bill was offered in congress In 1907 TO
prohibit the same.
But. however, the south favored the
abolition Of the slave trade and the
eventual abolition to slave holding. at
| the same time. they claimed Cd the
right to settle the question for them
selves, each state for itself and for Its
own citizens only, under the rights
guaranteed and reserved to the several
states by the constitution, p That
slavery being recognized as property
by the people at the time Of the adop-
tion of the constitution and by that in
strument itself, a citizen Of the Unio7
had the right to go into any Of the ter
ritory OF the Union (the common prop
erty of alb with this property and be
| and remain secure In his possession
and ownership of the same, and (S)
that the other states were In duty
bound to afford the same protection to
the citizens of slave-holding states
temporarily within their bounds. This
and this alone was all the south con-
tended for an how well that contention
was founded let the facts OF history
and the constitution demonstrate.
The right of each state to settle the
question for it's own citizens only
Certainly before they became states OF
the Union that was their right and
their only right for they were all, as
| II were independent nations, with con-
troll over their own affairs only and
| they so declared In that great decla-
ration affirming that they Of right are
and ought to be free and independent
states" Now can II be claimed that
this power was either curtailed or en-
larged by the terms Of that great COM
pact, the Federal constitution? Let us
see. When the constitution was first
submitted to the states for ratification
| the greatest opposition presented IT.
self in the fear that too much power
was granted by implication to the gen.
eral government, and only after the
most absolute assurance that an ex-
press reservation Of the undelegated
rights of the states woud be preserved
was 1t possible to get the requisite
number Of nine states to adopt the
same. Foremost Of the states In ex-
pressing themselves along this line may
be noted Massachusetts, New York,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Rhode Island. this discussion led to the
adoption Of that provision Of the con-
stitution which declares:
"The powers not delegated to the
United States by the constitution nor
prohibited by 1t to the states are re-
served to the states respectively, or to
the people"
Certainly. then. the right of state
| TO maintain or abolish slavery within
| its own borders and as to It's own citi-
Zens only, was reserved to the states
| In express terms. unless some other
provision Of the constitution delegated
that right to congress or prohibited the
cyercise thereof by the several states.
Clearly this proposition admits of no
cavil
Art. l. Sec. 2. apportions representa-
tion in congress from each state by
adding to the number Of free persons
three fifths Of al others.
certain recognition Of the right to
hold slaves and to he represented IN
the CONGRESS by reason thereof
Art. w Sec 2. provides: mo per-
Sor held to service or labor In one
state under the laws thereof. escaping
into another. shall in consequence or
any law or regulation therein be dis
charged from such service or labor. but
cbou ba daliyered I'm on claim of the