Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/inquiryintoequalOOsmit 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 EQUAL BIGHTS OF THE STATES 
 
 AS TO THE 
 
 EXTENSION OR NON-EXTENSION OF SLAVERY 
 
 INTO THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 BY AN INDIANIAN. 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS: 
 
 ELDER AND HARKNESS, PRINTERS. 
 
 July, 1856. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The writer of the following tract was born and partly 
 raised in South Carolina. He has always been, and still is, a 
 Democrat, of the Jefferson and Jackson schools. The first 
 vote he w r as entitled to give for President, he cast for General 
 Jackson, in 1828 ; and since that time he has acted with the 
 Democratic party. 
 
 Believing that the doctrine of EQUALITY of the States 
 as to rights in the Territories, as stated and insisted on by 
 the South, is bewildering and confusing a great many, he has 
 thought it proper to pen down, and give to the public, the 
 following tract. If it shall give any aid or assistance to any 
 portion of his fellow citizens, the writer’s end will be attained. 
 If, however, it does neither, it will be but little time and labor 
 that the writer will have lost; and he hopes his fellow citizens 
 will pardon him for his impertinence in giving them his 
 thoughts on a subject now agitating the public mind. 
 
a o 
 DA 
 
 $wiA> I u. siMMK-y. 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO EQUAL RIGHTS. 
 
 -- 
 
 The people of the free and slave States differ in opinion as 
 to the propriety of the institution of Slavery. This differ¬ 
 ence is antipodal and irreconcilable. While the people of the 
 slave States are of the opinion that the institution is proper 
 and desirable, and establish it by law, the people of the free 
 States are of opinion that it is improper and undesirable, 
 and prohibit it by law. 
 
 The Constitution guarantees to each and all of them the 
 right to enjoy their opinions, and carry them out by legisla¬ 
 tion in their respective States. 
 
 The fact that the one adopts and retains the institution, 
 while the other rejects and prohibits it, shows that they differ 
 radically and irreconcilably upon the subject. As the Consti¬ 
 tution guarantees to each the right to enjoy and act upon its 
 views within itself, the law of comity, and of good feeling 
 among them as different members of the same confederacy, 
 requires that each leave the other unmolested in the enjoy¬ 
 ment of its opinions, and unmolested in its acts under them. 
 They differ radically, in their views, upon the subject. They 
 should agree to differ, without either of them molesting the 
 other on account of its opinions. Common sense and com¬ 
 mon courtesy, to say nothing of the Constitutional obligations, 
 and the Christian law of love—forbearing one to another— 
 suggest this as the proper course for each and all to pursue. 
 It is tjie course practiced by all good citizens in their neigh¬ 
 borhood relations. Two neighbors differ radically in their 
 religious views. The Constitution and laws of the country 
 guarantee to each the free enjoyment of his views, and the 
 right to worship God accordingly. All good citizens, in such 
 circumstances, treat each other respectfully and courteously, 
 while each forbears to molest, disturb, or even annoy his 
 neighbor respecting his religious views ; but each, thanking 
 God that his lot is cast in a land where he is permitted to sit 
 under his own vine and his own fig-tree, and none dare molest 
 or make him afraid, freely worships God according to the die- 
 
4 
 
 tales of his own conscience and judgment, and as freely ac¬ 
 cords to his neighbor the same enjoyment. 
 
 This principle of action lies at the foundation of our insti¬ 
 tutions. It is of the very essence of our political system. It 
 is, that each citizen should so enjoy his own rights as not to 
 infringe upon his neighbor’s rights. And the same principle 
 ttat is the rule as between neighbors, is the rule as between 
 t™ States. All good citizens, in all the States, so regard it, 
 and govern their action accordingly. 
 
 But, unfortunately, some citizens in both the slave and free 
 States, do not govern their conduct by these principles. They 
 are not content to enjoy their own rights and privileges in 
 their own way, in their own States, but they desire to extend 
 the blessing of their own views to their neighbors of other 
 States, and have them to adopt them. Some in the slave 
 States, acting thus, insist that the blessing of their institution 
 should be extended out of their own State ; and some in the 
 free States insist that the blessing of their views should be 
 extended out of their own States into the slave States. Both 
 of these are wrong. For not being content with the enjoy¬ 
 ment of their own views, within their own territory, by en¬ 
 deavoring to thrust them upon others they infringe upon the 
 rights of others—the others having the right to entertain their 
 views unmolested. Hence 1 say they are both wrong. For 
 however commendable it may be to enlighten our neighbor, 
 and reclaim him from an error, if he has fallen into one, to 
 attempt it in a way that molests, annoys, and irritates him, 
 and to persist in it after he desires us to desist, is wrong, and 
 an infringement of his rights as an American citizen. 
 
 But the large mass of the people, both in the free States, and 
 of the slave States, are disposed to enjoy their own views, and 
 the practices founded on them, in their own States, yielding 
 and guaranteeing to every other State the like privileges. 
 There is not more than one per cent, of the population of the 
 North that is disposed to molest, disturb, or interfere with 
 slavery in the States where it exists. These are Abolitionists 
 in the proper sense of the term. Whether the fire-eaters of 
 the South are a greater or less proportion ot the population 
 there, I am not sufficiently informed to say. I hope they are 
 not greater ; while public indications would seem to say that 
 they are. 
 
 In the Territories, however, the question presents a differ¬ 
 ent aspect. They are the common property of all the States, 
 and the citizens of all the States have, or should have, equal 
 rights therein. This is insisted on by Southern citizens and 
 statesmen. They contend that to prohibit the extension of 
 
5 
 
 slavery into the Territories violates this equality, and is ag¬ 
 gression upon their rights. If this is so—if the prohibition of 
 slavery in the Territories is a violation of the principle of 
 equality among the States, and is aggressive upon the consti* 
 tutional rights of any of the States—it should not be allowed ; 
 while upon the other hand, if, it is not so—if the prohibition 
 of slavery in the Territories is not a violation of the principle 
 of equality among the States, and is not aggressive upon the 
 constitutional rights of any of the States—then the course of 
 Southern statesmen is unjustifiable ; and tending, as it does, 
 very much to excite and exasperate the people of the differ¬ 
 ent sections of the Union, is reprehensible. 
 
 I propose to examine this question, and see, if possible, 
 where the truth is. For the maxim of Jackson as to our for¬ 
 eign policy may not improperly be applied to us as States of 
 this Union : Ask for nothing but what is clearly right; and 
 submit to nothing that is wrong. 
 
 We should be certain, however, what are our clear rights 
 as States, and as citizens of States, before we insist on them, 
 and say that we will not submit to any other course of policy 
 than that we may have marked out as being our right. 
 
 Before proceeding, however, I think it proper to let the 
 Southern gentlemen, and those who contend for their doctrine, 
 state their own positions in their own language ; because this 
 is fair and right ; and moreover, I do not wish to perpetrate 
 the folly, or be guilty of the absurdity that is so often prac¬ 
 ticed, of combating or demolishing a position or doctrine that 
 is not contended for on the other side, instead of meeting and 
 combating what is contended for. Hence 1 lay before my 
 readers the following extracts, which I believe are fully and 
 fairly made, so that their contextual import can be fully seen 
 and understood. 
 
 The States of the Union are political equals—each State has the same rights as 
 every other State—no more, no less. The exercise of this prohibition [the urohi* 
 bitiori of slavery in the Territories] violates this equality, and violates justice. By 
 the laws of nations, acquisitions, either by purchase or conquest, even in despotic 
 governments, enure to the benefit of all the subjects of the State; the reason given 
 lor this principle, by the most approved publicists, is, that they are the fruits of 
 the common blood and treasure. This prohibition destroys this equality, excludes 
 a part of the joint owners from an equal participation and enjoyment of the com¬ 
 mon domain, and against justice and right, appropriates it to the greater number. 
 Therefore, so far from being a necessary and proper means of executing granted pow¬ 
 ers, it is an arbitrary and despotic usurpation,against the letter, the spirit, and the 
 declared purposes of the Constitution; for its exercise neither “promotes a more 
 perfect union, nor establishes justice, nor insures domestic tranquillity, nor pro¬ 
 vides for the common defense, nor promotes the general welfare, nor secures the 
 blessings ot liberty to ourselves or our posterity,” but on the contrary, puts in 
 jeopardy all these inestimable blessings. It loosens the bonds of union, seeks to 
 establish injustice, disturbs domestic tranquillity, weakens the common defense, 
 and endangers the general welfare by sowing hatreds and discords among our peo¬ 
 ple, and puts in eminent peril the liberties of the white race, by whom and for 
 
6 
 
 whom the Constitution was made, in a vain effort to bring them down to an 
 equality with the African, or to raise the Airican to an equality with them. Pro¬ 
 vidence has ordered it otherwise, and vain will be the efforts of man to resist this 
 decree. This effort is as wicked as it is foolish and unauthorized. It does not 
 benefit, but injures the black race; penning them up in the old States will necessa¬ 
 rily make them more wretched and miserable, but will not strike a fetter frcm 
 their limbs. It is a simple wrong to the white race, but it is the refinement of 
 cruelty to the blacks. Expansion is as necessary to the increased comforts of the 
 slave as to the prosperity of the master. 
 
 The constitutional construction of this point by the South works no wrong to 
 any portion of the Republic, to no sound rules ol construction, and promotes the 
 declared purposes of the Constitution. We simply propose that the common Ter¬ 
 ritories be left open to the common enjoyment of all the people of the United 
 ►States, that they shall be protected in their persons and property by the Federal 
 Government until its authority is superseded by a State Constitution, and then we 
 propose that the character of the domestic institutions of the new State be deter¬ 
 mined by the freemen thereof. This is justice—this is constitutional equality.— 
 Toombs' Address in Tremont Temple , Boston. 
 
 Let there be no legislative aggression on either side. Look through the records 
 of the country, and show me a single act, from the beginning of the Government 
 to this hour, where the South have perpetrated any aggression on the North, and 
 I would claim it as a privilege to strike it from the statute book. Nor do I com¬ 
 plain of any on the other siae until 1820 ; but I do affirm that the moment when 
 you said we should be shut out from the common Territories of the Union unless 
 we abandoned our slave property, it was aggression. It is aggression to exclude 
 fifteen States of this Union from the common Territories, purchased by the com¬ 
 mon blood and common treasure. We think no fair man can deny that proposi¬ 
 tion.— Toombs' Speech in reply to Hale. 
 
 The common property is open to the common enjoyment of all; It t it remain so, 
 and let us unite and firmly support those measures which will protect all alike in 
 the peaceful enjoyment of their rights.— From the same speech. 
 
 I never contended that I desired a law to carry slavery into a Territory, and I 
 never wanted a law to exclude it. All that I have contended for is, that the com¬ 
 mon domain of this Government, acquired by the common blood and treasure of 
 all parts of the United States, shall be just as free to one class of citizens as to 
 another. When the people of a Territory are in the process of approaching what 
 may be called the maturity of their Territorial existence—a State Government—-I 
 say much is to be pardoned to the opinion which prevails at the time. But, sir, it 
 an insulting interference were to be made by a majority of Congress, or such an 
 interference as would exclude a slaveholder on the broad ground that he was un¬ 
 worthy of equality with a non-slaveholding population, do you suppose I would 
 stay in the Union if I could get out of it ? That is the true question —Senator 
 Butler , in the Senate. 
 
 The distinct issue is about to be evolved between the parties in this country, on 
 which the next Presidential election will turn, and on the solution of which the 
 permanency of this Union depends. That issue is foreshadowed in the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise, and in the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska law. 
 This legislation gives practical expression to the feeling and movement that is 
 bringing about the issue, but does not accurately and fully define it. The South is 
 about to assert and maintain its equality in the Union. The men of the South, 
 even when they differ on the abstract question of slavery in the general, are about 
 to say to the Federal Government, the common agent of all the States, “ You shall 
 know no difference between the property and the institutions of the South and 
 those of the North.” “Be slavery right or wrong in the abstract, you, as equal 
 agents of slaveholders and non-slaveholders, are bound to see that it is admitted, 
 like any other property, into all the Territories of the Union, and equally secured 
 and protected after being so admitted.” Any ground short of that is abolition—is 
 an insult, a wrong, and a robbery of the South.— Richmond {Va.) Enquirer, of 
 March 1UA, 1856. 
 
 I think it may be fairly assumed that the foregoing extracts 
 assert and maintain the following propositions : 
 
I. That each of the States, and the citizens of each of the 
 States, have equal political and constitutional rights in all the 
 Territories of the Union ; because the Territories are the 
 common property, acquired by the common blood and treas¬ 
 ure of the Union ; and it is the duty of the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment to protect all alike in the enjoyment of their rights in 
 the Territories. 
 
 II. Therefore, the slaveholders have a right to go to the 
 Territories, with their slaves, and the Federal Government 
 should there recognize their property in their slaves, and pro¬ 
 tect them in the enjoyment of that right of property ; and if 
 it refuses to do it, it is an aggression upon their equal rights, and 
 will justify them in going out of the Union, if they can get 
 out. 
 
 The first proposition is true ; but the second is a non 
 sequitur. 
 
 We often deceive ourselves in our reasoning by not suffi¬ 
 ciently scrutinizing the terms w r e use in stating our proposi¬ 
 tions. If the minor is not contained in the major, our conclu¬ 
 sion, of course, is erroneous. 
 
 Because the Territories are the common property of the 
 Union, all the citizens of all the States have a common right 
 to go to, and occupy, and use them. This conclusion natu¬ 
 rally and necessarily follows, from the premises. 
 
 But when we say that because all the citizens of all the 
 States have a common right to go to, use, and occupy the 
 Territories on account of their being the common property of 
 the Union, they therefore have a right to take with them all 
 their other property of every kind, and hold it there, we cover 
 up a sophism by our language, and deceive ourselves without 
 perceiving where the fallacy lies. We all have a common 
 right to go to, and use the Territories, because they are com¬ 
 mon property, and are held by a common tenure ; but other 
 property, which is individual property, and not held by a com¬ 
 mon tenure, stands in a different category. When we insist 
 upon taking that private property there, and holding it as 
 private property, we are insisting upon taking with us the law 
 of that private property—the law establishing the tenure of 
 that property. And here we begin to discover the sophism, 
 and that we are using the term property , when we really 
 mean law of property. If all the citizens of all the States 
 have a right to go to the Territories, and take with them all 
 their tenures of property, and be protected there by the Fed¬ 
 eral Government in their tenures of property, then the equality 
 contended for will obtain, and the equal rights of all the citi¬ 
 zens in all the Territories will be secured. But this leads to 
 
8 
 
 an absurdity ; and it is an old established principle of logic, 
 that a proposition which results in an absurdity is untrue. 
 
 Horses, cattle, &c., are declared to be property by common 
 law—property in them is held by a common law tenure. The 
 true tenure dates much further back than the common law, 
 and it is found in the 28th verse of the first chapter, and the 
 2d verse of the ninth chapter of the Book of Genesis ; but 
 our system of civil government derives it from the common 
 law. We have no statute in any State, declaring and enact¬ 
 ing that horses, cattle, &c., are property. But all the citi¬ 
 zens, of all the States, recognize the common law tenure of 
 property, and agree in regarding them as property. When 
 they go to the common Territories, then, with their horses 
 and cattle, they all recognize property in them, and respect 
 the tenure ; and this is done because the common law, which 
 is the law of the nation as well as of all the States, establishes 
 the tenure. 
 
 But slaves are not property by common law. Neither are 
 they included in either of the before cited patents given to 
 Adam and Noah and their posterity. They are only made 
 property by municipal regulation—the law of the State. 
 Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Penn., 16 Pet., 539. The 
 tenure is created by the statute of the State ; and by the gen¬ 
 eral law of nations, no other State or nation is bound to re¬ 
 cognize the tenure. Do., 611. The non-slaveholding States, 
 and their citizens, are not bound to recognize the tenure, only 
 so far as the Constitution makes it obligatory upon them to 
 recognize it; and that is, to recognize it so far as to deliver 
 slaves up on claim, to be taken back to the State (not Terri¬ 
 tory) they escaped from. 
 
 This being the case, when the citizens of the slave States 
 claim to go to the Territories with their slaves, and to be pro¬ 
 tected in their property in them there, they claim to take with 
 them their law of property in slaves—their tenure of slavery, 
 and to be protected in it ; which is but claiming that their 
 municipal law r of slavery be established, as the law, in the 
 Territories. For the state of slavery is a creature of mu¬ 
 nicipal law, and cannot exist without it ; and to insist that the 
 Federal Government protect it as a property right, is but to 
 insist that the Federal Government enact the municipal law 
 creating it. 
 
 But if equality requires the Federal Government to recog¬ 
 nize and enforce, in the Territories, the municipal law of the 
 slave States establishing the state of slavery, which their 
 citizens may take with them into the Territories, does not the 
 same equality require the Federal Government to recognize 
 
9 
 
 and enforce in the Territories the constitutional prohibition 
 of slavery of the free States, which their citizens may take 
 with them into the Territories ? It certainly does. For if 
 the citizens of one portion of the Union have the right to take 
 their laws on the subject of slavery into the Territories, and 
 have them enforced there, the citizens of the other portion of 
 the Union have an equal right to take their laws on the subject 
 of slavery into the Territories, and have them enforced there. 
 “Each State has the same rights as every other Slate—no 
 more, no less,” says Mr. Toombs. So say I. Then, if one 
 State has a right to have its laws of slave property recognized 
 and respected in the Territories, another State has the same 
 right to have its laws of slave property recognized and re¬ 
 spected there. But if Mr. Toombs 1 State (Georgia) and my 
 State (Indiana) were the two States so insisting upon their 
 rights in a particular Territory, the Federal Government 
 would have to recognize, respect, and enforce in that Terri¬ 
 tory, a law establishing slavery, and also a constitutional pro¬ 
 hibition of it. This brings us to an absurdity ; and hence it 
 shows that the premises are untenable. The Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment is not under constitutional obligations to respect, 
 protect, and enforce, in the Territories, the laws of property 
 of any State ; for it cannot enforce all ; therefore, to be just 
 and equal , it must enforce none. And though all the citizens 
 of all the States have the right to go into the common Terri¬ 
 tories, and use and occupy them, and take with them all their 
 property, yet none of them have a right to take with them 
 their laws of property of the States they leave, establishing 
 the tenure by which they hold their property. 
 
 And this is in accordance with the rules of law long known 
 and established, to wit: that a citizen or subject who emigrates 
 and changes his domicil, leaves the law of his domicil when 
 he emigrates, and takes the law of his new domicil when he 
 takes his new domicil. As slavery is the creature of munici¬ 
 pal law, and not of general law—neither of national law nor 
 of common law—the slaveholder holds his slave by the muni¬ 
 cipal law of his State, and by that alone. If he migrates and 
 goes to a Territory, he either has a right to take the law of 
 the domicil he leaves to the domicil he goes to, or he has not. 
 The general rule as to all “ the rest of mankind” is, that when 
 he migrates he leaves the law of the domicil he leaves, and 
 takes the law of his new domicil. But Mr. Butler, and South¬ 
 ern gentlemen, insist that they shall be allowed to take with 
 them the law of the domicil thev leave, so far as it makes 
 slaves property, to their new domicil, or else they are not 
 “ equal” with a non-slaveholding population. In the language 
 
10 
 
 of Mr. Toombs, it is “aggression and he thinks that no fair 
 man can deny the proposition that it is aggression. Well, if 
 it is aggression and inequality to not allow the man from a 
 slave State to go to the Territories and take with him (con¬ 
 trary to the common rule as to migration) his law of the State 
 he leaves, making his slaves property, will it not be equally 
 aggression and inequality to not allow a man from a free 
 State to go to the Territories and take with him his law (or 
 constitutional provision, as the case may be,) of the State he 
 leaves, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude ? “ No 
 
 fair man ” can say but what it will. But if they both have 
 the right to do so, and both take their respective laws with 
 them into a Territory, when they meet they find that they 
 have direct contradictory law there by right , and that each 
 side of the contradiction is the law ! This will show them, 
 if they have any discernment, that the premises they started 
 off upon are wrong, because they lead to an absurdity, to wit: 
 that two contradictory la^ys are both the law at the same 
 time and place ! ! And if they are dispassionate enough to 
 reflect and reason about it, instead of going to fighting at 
 once for the mastery, they will see that, as they are equals in 
 every respect, if one has a right to bring with him his law of 
 the domicil he has left, the other has the equal right to bring 
 with him his law ; and as this has practically led to an absurd¬ 
 ity, they will come to the conclusion that the rule of the case, 
 which has been long held to be the rule, that neither had a 
 right to bring with him the law of the domicil he left, is the 
 true rule. 
 
 Mr. Butlers and Mr. Toombs’ “equality,” then, is, to give 
 the slaveholder the right to take his law of slavery to the Ter¬ 
 ritories, which, if the law, puts down the law of the people of 
 the free States; and thus they have it all their own way, and 
 still call that “equality and Mr. Butler threatens to bolt the 
 Union if he does not get “equality” as thus defined by him. 
 And Mr. Toombs says that their construction of this point 
 “ works no wrong to any portion of the Republic,” though it 
 makes the notions of one portion of the Republic on the sub¬ 
 ject of slavery the law of all the Territories ; while the no¬ 
 tions of the other portion, and that “the greater number," 
 too, is overrid and suppressed in all the Territories, while they 
 remain Territories. 
 
 But does the fact that the opinions of the slave States as to 
 the institution of slavery are made paramount in the Territo¬ 
 ries, “ work no wrong to any portion of the Republic?" 
 Are not the opinions of the free States as to the institution 
 as sacred to them, and entitled to as much respect as those of 
 
11 
 
 * 
 
 the slave States ? While the people of the slave States pre¬ 
 fer to have the African race among them, and believe that the 
 institution is beneficial to both races, the mass of the people 
 of the free States prefer not to have the African race among 
 them, and believe that the institution is injurious to the State 
 and country where it exists. Both the race and the institu¬ 
 tion are distasteful to them. Are not their views, and opin¬ 
 ions, and tastes in the premises, entitled to as much respect 
 and regard as those of the people of the slave States ? If to 
 say that the views and opinions of the people of the slave 
 States on the subject shall not be paramount in the Territo¬ 
 ries, is aggressive, and works a wrong to them, is it correct 
 to say that though the views and opinions of the people of 
 the free States on the subject shall not be paramount in the 
 Territories, it is not aggressive, and works no wrong to them? 
 If it is, then the people of the free States have not “equality.” 
 
 “ Of course Ohio is ahead of Kentucky, and Illinois of Mis¬ 
 souri, for white men are vastly superior to negroes ; but 
 slavery’ has nothing to do with it.”— N* Y. Day Book , of 
 June 6th , 1856. The people of the free States, however, 
 think it has, and prefer that the new Territories shall be 
 placed in the better rather than the w*orse condition, as ex¬ 
 emplified by the contrast of those States. 
 
 Mr. Toombs, in his lecture in Tremont Temple, Boston, 
 says : 
 
 The question of material advantage would be settled on the side of slavery, 
 whenever it was shown that our mixed society was more productive and prosperous 
 than any other mixed society with the inferior race free instead of slave. The ques¬ 
 tion is not whether we could not be more prosperous and happy with these three 
 and a half millions of slaves in Africa, and their places filled with an equal number 
 of hardy, intelligent, and enterprizing citizens of the superior race; but it is simply 
 whether, while we have them among us, we would be most prosperous with them 
 in freedom or bondage. 
 
 Whilst this indirectly admits that the slave States would be 
 better off with the negroes in Africa, and their places supplied 
 by whites, it insists that as they have them there they must 
 keep them slaves. But the negroes are not in the Territories, 
 and the whole argument to sustain that which Mr. Toombs 
 says is not the question where they are, applies to the Terri¬ 
 tories, because the negroes are not there. The people of the 
 free States think that it would be injurious to the Territories 
 to let them go there. They want the “ superior race ” there 
 without the inferior, which they think the better policy for 
 the Territories ; and Mr. Toombs indirectly admits that they 
 will be more prosperous and happy if that policy is pursued. 
 And yet he says it would “ work no wrong to any portion of 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 
12 
 
 the Republic ” to have this policy crushed and the opposite 
 one placed in the ascendant. 
 
 Man is a social being. Half of his enjoyment in this life 
 springs from society. In and upon the society around him 
 depends most of his enjoyments or disquietudes. The people 
 of the slave and free States differ toto coelo in their tastes, no¬ 
 tions, and habits on this subject. The people of the slave 
 States are content and enjoy themselves in a mixed society 
 of the two races ; while the mass of the people of the free 
 States are not content and do not enjoy themselves with the 
 black race. They prefer to be separate from them. The 
 Abolitionists form the principal exception to this remark, but 
 they are few and far between in the free States ; while the 
 pro-slavery men form the other and the only other exception, 
 and they are few r er and still farther between. The mass, 
 though, of the people of the free States prefer to be separate 
 from the blacks, and not have them in their community either 
 as slaves or free. They have the equal right to go to the 
 Territories—the common property—and occupy and enjoy it 
 in common with their brethren from the slave States, and the 
 equal right to be consulted in determining what its population 
 and society shall be. If the presence of the negro race is 
 disagreeable and offensive to them, (to say nothing of the in¬ 
 stitution of slavery, which is very disagreeable to many, and 
 in their opinion sinful and wrong.) to crowd the black race on 
 them against their will, it would seem would be somewhat 
 “ aggressive,” and would “work” some “wrong” to them. 
 The common law has always said that if I erect and maintain 
 a nuisance, to the annoyance of my neighbor, that I work 
 him a w r rong, and am held liable for it. If five partners ac¬ 
 quire an estate in common, and two of them desire to place 
 something upon it that they have and use upon their private 
 estates, but which is something that the other three do not 
 wish placed there, and to some of whom it would be very of¬ 
 fensive, shall the will of the two be paramount to that of the 
 other three ? And if it is made so, is there no “ aggression ” 
 any where ? and no wrong worked to any one ? 
 
 May I not, then, in the language of Mr. Toombs, say, that 
 “the exercise of this” establishing of slavery in the Territo¬ 
 ries “ violates this equality, and violates justice. * * This” 
 
 establishing of slavery “destroys this equality, excludes a part 
 of the joint owners from an equal participation and enjoyment 
 of the common domain,” because they will not live where ne¬ 
 groes and slavery are if they can find any other place to go 
 to, “and against justice and right, appropriates it to the ” less 
 u number. Therefore, so far from being a necessary and 
 
13 
 
 proper means of executing granted powers, it is an arbitrary 
 and despotic usurpation, against the letter, the spirit, and the 
 declared purposes of the Constitution ; for its exercise neither 
 “• promotes a more perfect union, nor establishes justice, nor 
 insures domestic tranquility,[witness Kansas] nor provides for 
 the common defense, nor promotes the general welfare, nor se¬ 
 cures the blessings of liberty to ourselves or our posterity,” but 
 on the contrary, puts in jeopardy all these inestimable bless¬ 
 ings. It loosens the bonds of union, seeks to establish injus¬ 
 tice, disturbs domestic tranquility, [vide Kansas] weakens the 
 common defense, and endangers the general welfare by sow¬ 
 ing hatreds and discords among our people, and puts in immi¬ 
 nent peril the liberties of the white race, by whom and for 
 whom the Constitution was made, in a vain effort to bring 
 them down to an equality with the African, or to raise the 
 African to an equality with” the free, white, enterprizing, and 
 intelligent citizen laborers. “Providence has ordered it oth¬ 
 erwise, and vain will be the efforts of man to resist this decree.' 
 This effort is as wicked as it is foolish and unauthorized.” 
 And “ I do affirm that the moment when you said we should 
 be shut out from the common Territories of the Union unless” 
 we agreed to live among negroes and in the midst of the insti¬ 
 tution of slavery, u it was aggression. It is aggression to ex¬ 
 clude ” sixteen “States” and two-thirds of the entire white 
 population “of this Union from the common Territories, pur¬ 
 chased by the common blood and common treasure. We 
 think no fair man can deny that proposition.” 
 
 The whole of Mr. Toombs’ constitutional argument, by 
 substituting in it establishing for prohibition of slavery, is 
 equally pertinent against him and his side of the argument. 
 
 The truth is, the Constitution only guarantees to the States 
 their rights to determine for themselves their institutions 
 within their own territory. It does not guarantee that any 
 institution a State may have shall be taken into the Territo¬ 
 ries. As to the Territories, the Constitution gives to Congress 
 the power to “ make all neeeful rules and regulations ;” and 
 that is all that is said in the Constitution on the subject. If 
 any rules are needful to be made on the subject of slavery, in 
 the Territories, Congress has to make them, and no other 
 body, unless she can and do delegate to it the power. And,if 
 no “rules” are made there on the subject, slavery will not ex¬ 
 ist there ; for it takes a “rule” to create it in a place, and 
 that a special rule, too. The general “rule” forbids it. So 
 does the general sense of civilized nations. 
 
 If Southern gentlemen insist that it is “needful” to make 
 a rule on the subject, in the Territories, the people of the free 
 
14 
 
 States certainly have a right to determine for themselves 
 what is the needful or proper rule to make. And their exer¬ 
 cising their judgment in the premises, is no more aggressive, 
 or a just ground of offense to the people of the slave States, 
 than is the exercising by the people of the slave States of 
 their judgment in the premises, aggressive, and a just ground 
 of offense to the people of the free States. And as it is a 
 question upon which we differ totally and radically, and there 
 is no middle ground to occupy, the only rational way of ar¬ 
 ranging the difficulty would seem to be to divide the territory 
 equitably and fairly, in proportion to the free whites who en¬ 
 tertained these different views. This the Missouri Compro¬ 
 mise undertook to do ; and, as it is an exciting subject, all 
 good citizens acquiesced in that arrangement for the sake of 
 peace. The compromise measures of 1850 proceeded on the 
 same principle of peace, and of quieting the public mind, and 
 were insisted on, at the time, as being a “ finality ” upon the 
 exciting subject. The Democratic party, in its National 
 Convention of 1852, pledged itself to the nation to “resist all 
 attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation 
 of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the 
 attempt might be made.” The Whig party, which met soon 
 after, made a like pledge. They were the great parties of 
 the country, and they so pledged themselves to assure the 
 country that the subject was finally arranged and disposed of, 
 and that they would not allow the Pandora’s box to be again 
 opened. 
 
 u Whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad.” 
 
 This is claimed as an oracle from a heathen, while I am of 
 opinion that the idea was borrowed from a divine source, 
 through the prophet Jeremiah. But it is a truism, come from 
 what source it may, and seems to apply here. 
 
 These pledges were not eighteen months old until they 
 were violated, at the instance of Southern men, by introduc¬ 
 ing provisions in relation to slavery, into the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, by which the Missouri Compromise was repealed, and 
 the ultraists on the two sides of the question, invited to the 
 plains of Kansas to settle the question of slavery in the Ter¬ 
 ritory for themselves ; who very naturally, (as it is a question 
 you cannot arrange by argument,) went to contending at once 
 for the mastery, resulting in a now begun civil war. 
 
 This was the extreme of madness and folly. It will 'pre¬ 
 vent slavery from being extended into Kansas , or any other 
 Territory. 
 
 For as it cannot constitutionally go there without the assent 
 of the free States, or of a portion of them, this breach of 
 
15 
 
 compromises on the subject, and of good faith, both of party 
 faith and of public faith, and the claiming by the South of all 
 the Territories, instead of being satisfied with that portion 
 assigned them by compromise, should induce, and will induce 
 the people of the free States to act upon their own judgment 
 as to the propriety of extending slavery into the Territories. If 
 they do so, as a matter of course, the question may be con¬ 
 sidered as settled against the further extension of slavery. 
 The sooner the slave States are fully aware of this—that this 
 is, and will be the result—the better for them. For they say 
 that expansion is necessary for them—for both the black and 
 white races—and that “ it is the refinement of cruelty to the 
 blacks to pen them up in the old States.” Mr. Toombs fur¬ 
 ther says : u The condition of the African (whatever may be 
 his interests) may not be permanent among us; he may find 
 his exodus in the unvarying laws of population .”—(Address 
 in Boston .) They therefore should look the matter calmly in 
 the face, and make arrangements for this exodus to Africa , 
 instead of to the Territories. The mass of the people of the 
 free States, having rid themselves of the race, conceive that 
 they have rid themselves of the responsibility of their reten¬ 
 tion or exodus ; yet they would cheerfully aid their brethren 
 of the slave States in effecting such exodus to Africa as they 
 might devise, consistent with humanity. But they do not de¬ 
 sire to deliver the territory of this continent to the u inferior 
 race,” and they will not consent to its being done. They 
 want it for the “-superior race.” It is the work of wisdom, 
 then, for the people of the slave States, instead of insisting 
 upon rights that the Constitution does not give them, and 
 thereby endangering this happy Union, to set themselves, in 
 good faith, to the adoption of measures that will look to the 
 “expansion” of the black race in Africa, rather than into the 
 Territories of this Union. 
 
 By disturbing the “finality,” and “renewing in Congress 
 the agitation of the slavery question,” Southern gentlemen 
 have closed the door against the further extension of their 
 institution into the Territories, let the Presidential election of 
 this year result as it may. And if this want of expansion 
 shall prove the death-knell of their institution, they can justly 
 blame no one for it but themselves. Their course, policy, 
 and doctrines are suicidal, and they seem to be demented. 
 Therefore the before cited maxim seems applicable, and shows 
 that the Divine Mind is preparing the way for that exodus of 
 which Mr. Toombs speaks. 
 
 Note. —After the foregoing was sent to the printer, the se- 
 
16 
 
 cond volume of Benton’s Thirty Years in the Senate, came to 
 the hands of the writer. He found therein, at page 696 et 
 sequitur, views expressed similar to some of those expressed 
 in the foregoing tract. While he is glad to find his views sus¬ 
 tained by so high authority as that of Senator Benton, it is 
 due to the writer that he should state that he had no know¬ 
 ledge that such was the fact, until after the foregoing was 
 written. The writer first advanced the substance of these 
 views, nearly two years ago, in a letter to a friend in Texas, 
 which was published there. 
 
 \ 
 
 
 / 
 

 
 \