The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1911-03-10

therefore respectfully refer him to
that, to him. strange instrument, if he
will read the constitution of the
United States before constituting it,
he will find that the legality of slav-
cry is recognized in the constitution of
the United States in the provision for
the rendition of fugitive slaves, in
the provision fixing the basis for
representation in the house of repre-
|sentatives in the congress of the
United States, and in the provision in
hibiting the prohibiting of the impor-
tation Of slaves prior to 1908 1t is
true that the word slaves is not
used in either provision, but that
these provisions had reference to
slaves was universally recognized at
the time and is universally recognized
now.
If Mr.. Banks will brush up his
historic 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 insistence by the south
|ern states upon the doctrine of states
rights or state soveringty 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 sections and at all
times, state soveringty was fully rec
ognized prior to 1880, and that in
both sections and at various times
this question became very acute, prior
to 1880.
Has he never heard of the occas-
sions upon which the New England
states insisted upon their sovereign
right to secede and threatened to en-
force this right long prior to 1880?
Has he never heard of the Hartford
convention, which was in reality a
secession convention, and which con-
vened during the war of 1872? Has
he never heard of the Virginia and
Kentucky resolutions of 1798-1799,
which were emphatic assertions of the
doctrine of state sovereignty and in
volved the right of secession? Has
he never read the celebrated report of
Madison on the Virginia resolutions?
Can he really be ignorant of all of
these historic events, and he a pro-
fessor of history and economics
Mr.. Banks also states that stud
ents of history can easily see the rea.
Sonableness and correctness of the
republican altitude" in 1860 in insist
ing that congress under the consti
tuition had complete powers of govern
ment in the territories, and that it
should exercise those powers in be-
half of freedom" Now this ques-
ton had produced many and acri-
monious debates in congress. Even
tually all parties united in declaring
that a decision of the supreme court
on this question would be accepted as
final. In 1857, in the famous 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, into any part of the common
territory, and that they were entitled
to claim and receive the protection
of this property, and this was the
contention of the southern wing of the
democratic party in 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 supreme court, or
does he see the ''reasonablenss or
correctness of the republican attitude"
on this question from a moral stand
point in violating the agreement to
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 per-
feet the institution of slavery the
south was led to attach exaggerated
to the doctrine of states
rights and to revive political science
that was becoming obsolete" Again,
he speaks of state sovereignty as ian
antiquated 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 co-evil with the federal
and there had been no
period in the existence of the federal
government prior to 1861, when it was
not vital principle. Does he not
know that Calhoun's celebrated resolu-
tons declaring the right and sover
eighty of the states, passed the senate
in 1888 by more than two-thirds ma
ioritv AGAINST the determined but fll-