Year: 1859

with death and q. covenant hltn nell


i. 7. What did Mr.. Donglas mean when he
proposed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska
bill repeating tho Missouri restriction Did
he intend to tell southern men that notwith-
standing the repeal of the prohibition, they
were excluded from those Territories as much
as ever !? Or did he not regard the right of
master to his slave perfectly good whenever
he got rid of the prohibition Did he, or any
body else at that time, dream that it was ne
cessary to make a positive law in favor of the
stakeholder before he could go there with safe
ty? TO ask these questions is to answer them.
The Kansas Nebraska Lall was not meant as a
delusion or snare It was we'll understood
that the repeal alone of the restriction against
slavery would throw the country open to eve
rything which the Constitution recognized as
property.


We have thus given what we believe to be
the opinions held by the great lody of the
Democratic party namely, that the Federal
Constitution does not cstabl sh slavery any
where in the Union; that it permits black
man to be either held in servitude or made
free as the local law shah decide and that in
a Territory were no local law ON the subject
has been enacted, it keeps both the slave and
the free negro in the status already impressed
upon them, until it shall be changed by COM
petent local authority We have seen, that



a great principle of public law, by the words
cf the Constitution, by solemn decision OF
the Supreme Court, by the whole course of our
Legislation, by the concession of our political
opponents, and, finally, by the most important
act in the public life of Mr.. Douglas himself


Mr.. Douglas imputes another absurdity to
his opponents when he charges them with in
sisting s'that it is the duty of the judiciary to
protect and maintain slavery in the Territories
@tthont any lar upon the subject" The judge
who acts without law acts against law ; and
surely no sentiment so atrocious this was ev-
er entertained by any portion of the Demo-
cratic party The right of master to the SER
vices of his slave in Territory is not against
law nor without law, but in full accordance
with law. IF the law be against it we are all
against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska
a legalright to the OK team, which he bought in
Ohio, to haul MIN over the plains Is not his
title good to it in the Territory, as it was in
the State where he got it2 And what should
be said of judge who tells him that he is not
protected, or that he is maintained, in the pos
session of his property, "without any law upon
the sIbject?'
II. We had a right to expect from Mr.
Douglas at least a clear and inteligible defini-
ton of his own doctrines We are dsappoint-
ed. 1t is hard y possiblesto conceive anything





cribe it again, and do what can be done to an
alyze it.


''Those who believe that the Constitution of the
United States neither establishes nor prohibits sa-
very in the States Territories beyond the power
of the people legally control it, but leaves the
people perfectly free to form and regulate their do
mestic institutions in their way subject only
the Constitution of the United States -


The Constitution, neither establishes nor pro-
hi6its sldUe1y IN the States or Territories IF
it be meant by this that the Constitution does
not, proprtG rigore, either emancipate any
mans slave, or create the condition of slavery,
and impose it on free negroes, but leaves the
question of every black mans status, in the
Territories well as in the States, to be de-
termined by the local law, then we admit it,
for it is the very same proposition which we
have been trying to prove. But if, on the
contrary, it Is to be understood as an assertion
that the Constitution does not permit master
to keep his slave, or free negro to have his
liberty, in all parts of the Union where the To-
cal law does not interfere to prevent it, then
the error is not only very grave one, but it
is also absurd and selfcontradictory.


The Consultation neither establishes nor pro-
hi6its slauery in the States or Territories be-
yond the po,ccr of the people legally to control
OF course subject, which is legally controlled,
cannot be beyond the power that controls it.
But the question is, what constitutes legal con-
troll, and when the people of State or Terri
tory are in a condition to exercise it.


THE Constitution Of the United States =
leaves the people perfectly free, =


x 4 and subject only to the Constitution
of tie United States. This carries us round a
full circle, and drops us precisely at the place
OF beginning. That the Constitution leaves
everybody subject to the Constitution, is most
true. We are far from denying it. We never
heard it doubted, and expect we never will
But the statement of it proves nothing, defines
nothing, and explains nothing 1t merely
darken5 the subject as words without meaning
always do.


But Notwithstanding all this circuity of cx-
preston and consequent opaqueness of meaning
in the magazine article of Mr.. Douglas, we
think we guess what his opinions are or
will be when he comes to reconsider the sub
ject. He will admit Cat least he will not un-
dertake to deny) that the status of negro,
whether of seryitude freedom, accompanies
him wherever he goes, and adheres to him in
every part of the Union until he meets some
local law which changes it.


1t will also be agreed that the people of a
State, through their Legislature, and the peo-
pie of Territory, in the constitution which
they may frame preparatory to their admission
as Il OUslCe, can Tcpuldlc COHtTOl tlc COuul-
tion of the subject black race within their re-
speetive Jurisdictions, so as to make them bond
or free.


But here we come to the point at which
opinions diverge Some insist that no citizen
can be deprived of his property in slaves, or in
anything else, except by the provision of a
State constitution or by the act of State
Legislature; while others contend that an un.
limited control over private rights may be ex
ercised by Territorial Legislature soon as
the earliest settlements made.


So strong are the sentiments of Mr.. Douglas
in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it be
not established he threatens us with Mr.. Sew
ards @irrepressible conflict which shall enc
only with the universal abolition or the univer
sal dominion of slavery On the other hand
the President, the Judges of the Supreme
Court, nearly all the Democratic members O
| Conerr +ha suhoio of the nartu South and