The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-03-05

stitution. The Southern Statesmen of
1860 had higher conception Of their
moral and constitutional obligations.
Slavery Legaiized.
Mr.. Banks assertion that slavery
was 'legalized and regulated by the
State Governments not only by the
National (FederaD Government" leads
one to believe that this Professor of
History and Economics considers
Government and Constitution" as
interchangeable terms; however, 1t IS,
probably, too exacting to require this
Professor Of History and Economics,
TO know that constitution and govern
ment are not the same, but that gov
eminent is the creature of constitu-
ton. I will therefore assume that
when he refers to government" in the
above sentence that he means CON
stitutfon," and I therefore respectfully
refer him to that, to him, strange in
strument, If he will read the Consti-
tuition of the United States before con-
STRUNG It, he will find that the legality
Of slavery is recognized in the Consti-
tuition of the United States in the pro-
vision for the rendition of fugitive
slaves; In the provision fixing the
basis for representation in the House
of Representatives in the Congress of
the United States, and in the provision
inhibiting the prohibiting of the i'm
portation of slaves prior to 1903. 1t is
true that the word slaves" is not used
| in either provision, but, that these pro-
visions had reference to slaves was
universally recognized at the time and
is universally recognized now.
II Mr.. Banks will brush up his his
toric memory or inform his historic
mind, he will find that he is also mis-
taken in contending that the question
of slavery antedated, and was the
cause of the fnsistence by the sover-
eighty. Mr.. Banks in this article very
truly says that the agitation of negro
slavery was not very acute, prior to
! 1880, while every well informed school,
/ boy of sixteen knows that in both Sec
tons and at all times, state sover-
eighty was fully recognized prior to
1880, and that in both sections and at
various times this question became
very acute, prior to 1880.
New England as Example.
Has he never heard of the several
occasions upon which the New Eng
land States insisted upon their SOW
ereign right to secede and threatened
to enforce this right long prior to
1880? Has he never heard of the
Hartford Convention, which was in re-
atty secession convention, and
which convened during the War of
1872? Has he never heard of the Vir-
ginia and Kentucky resolutions Of
1893 1879, which were emphatic asser-
lions of the doctrine of state sover-
eighty and involved the right of Sc
cession? Has he never read the cele-
brated report of Madison on the Vir-
ginia resolution? Can he really be ig-
norant of all of these historic events,
and he a Professor of History and
Economics?
Mr.. Banks also states that students
of history can easily see the reasona-
bleness and correctness of the Repub-
lican attitude" in 1860 in insisting that
! congress under the constitution had
complete powers of government In the
| territories, and that it should exer-
else these powers in behalf of free
DOM" Now this question had produc-
ed many and acrimonious debates in
congress. Eventually all parties united
in declaring that a decision of the SUI
preme court on this question would be
accepted as final. In 1857, in the ia
nous bred Scott case, the supreme
court of the United States declared
that congress had no right to exclude
citizens Of the South from taking their
slave property, as any other property.
into any part of the common terri
tory, and that they were entitled to
claim and receive the protection OF
this property, and this was the conten-
ton Of the Southern wing Of the
Democratic party of 1860.
Now does this professor of history
and economics see the reasonable
ness and correctness of the Republi-
can attitude" on this question, from
a constitutional standpoint, after this
decision of the suprem court, or does
he see the ''reasonableness and cor
rectness of the Republican attitude
on this question from a moral stand
point in violating the agreement &c
accept this decision of the supreme
court of the United States as final:
: This professor of history and econom-
les again says, that in order to protect
tho institution of slavery the South
was led to attach exaggerated i'm
portance to the doctrine of states
rights and to revive a political science
that was becoming obsolete" Agar
he speaks of state sovereignty as 'ar
Anticipated order of things in govern
ment" Does not this professor OF
history and economics know that the
question of state sovereignty or state
rights was coeval with the fedora
government, and that there had beer
no period in the existence of the fed
err! government prior to 1851, when II
was not vital principle. Does he not
know that Calhoun's celebrated resclu-
ton declaring the right and sover-
eighty Of the states, passed the senate
In 1888 by more than two-thirds ma
jority against the determined but fu-
tile opposition of Webster? Does he
not know that those resolutions were
the cornerstone Of the tenets and prin-
ciples of the Democratic party, and
that the Democratic party was the
majority and dominant party up to the
election of 1860?
The bred Scott Case.
He refers to the bred Scott opin-
ion. Has he never read it, or does he