Year: 1859

|


a slave remained slave, and freeman a free


man, in the new Territories, until chang


was made in their condition bv some positiv


enactment. Nobody believed that slav


might not have been taken to and kept in th
Northwest Territory, if the ordinance of I78'
or some other regulation had not been made e
| prohibit H. The Missouri restriction OF 1926
was imposed solely because il was understood
| (probably by every member of that Congress
| that, IN the absence of restriction, slave prop
erty would be as lawful in the eye of the Con.
stitution above SO deg. 80 min. as below and
all agreed, that the mere absence of rpstric.
ton did, in fact, make it lawful below the CON.
promise line.


3. 1t is right 10 learn wisdom from our ene-
mics. The Republicans do not point to auy
express provision OF the Constitution, nor TO any
general principle embraced in it, nor to any es-
tabllshed rule of law, which Sustains their
views. The ablest men among them are driv-
en- by stress OF necessity TO hunt for arguments
IN code unreveaied, unwrtten, and underlined
which they put above the Constitution or the
Bible, and call it "higher law'' The ultra ab-
olltlonists Of New England do not deny that
the Constitution is rightly interpreted by the
Democrats, as not interfering against slavery IN
the Territories but they disdain to obev what
they pronounce to be san agreement with death
and covenant with hell"


7. What did Mr.. Douglas mean when he
proposed and voted for the Kansas Nebraska bill
repeating the Missouri restriction Did he in
tend to tell southern men that notwithstanding
the repeal OF the prohibition, they were eXclu-
ded 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 anybody else at that
time, dream that i! was necessary to make a
positive law in favor OF the Shareholder before
he could go there with safety To ask these
questions is TO answer Them The Kansas-Ne-
braSka bill was not meant as a deluson or
snare. 1t was well understood that the repeal
alone OF the restriction against slavery would
throw the country open TO everything which
the Constitution recognized as property.


We have thus given what we believe to be
the opinions held by the great body of the Dem
ocratIc party namely, that the Federal Con-
stitutIon does not establish slavery anywhere in
the Union that it permits black man to be
either held in servitude or made free as the local
law shall decide and that in Territory where
no local law on the subject has been enacted, it
status already impressed IT, IT,. them, until it
shall be changed by competent local authority
We have seen, that this is sustained by the rea-
son Of the thing, by great principle Of public
law, by the words OF the whole course of our
legislation, by the concession OF our political OPP
Ponents, and, finally, by the most important act
in the public lie OF Mr.. Douglas himself.


Mr.. Douglas imputes another absurdity to
MS opponents when he charges them with insis-
Ing ''that it is the duty of the judiciary 10 pro-
tect and maintain slavery in the Territories
Wttout anytaU upon tie subject" The lodge
who acts without law acts against law and
surely no sentiment so atrociouS as this was ev-
er entertained by any portion Of the Democrat
&c party. The right OF a master 20 the servi-
ces OF his slave in a Territory is not against law
nor without law, but in full accordance with
law. 1.-THE law be against it VIZ are all against
IT. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska legal
right 10 the OK team, which he bought in Ohio
to haul hlm over the plains Is not his title
as good to it in the Territory, as it was in the
State where he got i? And what should be
said OF Judge who tells hIm that he Is not pro-
tected, or that he is maintained in the possession
of his property ''without any law upon the sub
Iect -


IL. We had a right TO expect from Mr.
Douglas at least clear and Ineligible defni.
ton OF his own doctrine. We are disappoin.
ted. IT is hardly posi- Bile to conceive anything
more difficult to comprehend. We will tran.
scribe it again, and do what can be done to a
| nalyze it.


ho hal at fha futio oc e.
| United States neither establishes nor prohibits sla
very in the States Territories beyond the powe
of the people legally to control it, but "leaves the peo
pie reofpertectlY free to form and regulate thei
domestic Institutions in their own way, subject on
| ly to the Constitution of the United States -
| The Constitution neither establishes nor pro
hibits StaUery IN the States or Territories: If


be- meant by this that the Constitution does nc
prOpriO Uig0re, either emancIpate any man
| slave, or create the condition of slavery, an
| impose it on free negroes, but leaves the ques


ton OF every black mans status, in the Terri
| tories as well as in the States, to be determine
by the local law, then we admit it, for il is th
very same proposition which we have been try
| ing TO prove. But it, on the contrary, it is t
be understood as an assertion that the Coustitu


ton does not permit master TO keep hls slave


or free negro to have his liberty, in all pari


of the Union where the local law does not in


tertere to prevent 1t, then the error is not onl


a very grave one, but it is also absurd and sell


contradictory.


"The Constitution neither establishes norlprc


hi6itS slavery in the States or Territories beyon


the power OF the people legally to control it.'


This is sailing TO Point-No-Point again. {


course subject, which is legally controlled


cannot be beyond the power that controls i
But the question is, what constitutes legal cor


troll, and when the people OF State or Terrific
ry are in condition 10 exercise it.


: "The Constitution of the United States
: leaves the people perfectly fre


and subject only TO Ii
Constitution Of the United States.n This ca