FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   577   578   579   580   581   582   583   584   585   586   587   588   589   590   591   592   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   >>  
g it, there was no abandonment of principle by the south."--(Mr. Walker, of Mi.)--further, that it was advocated by the southern senators generally as an expression of their views, and as setting the question of slavery in the District on its _true_ ground--that finally when the question was taken, every slaveholding senator, including Mr. Calhoun himself, voted for the resolution. By passing this resolution, and with such avowals, the south has surrendered irrevocably the whole question at issue between them and the petitioners for abolition in the District. It has, unwittingly but explicitly, conceded the main question argued in the preceding pages. The _only_ ground taken against the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District is, that it existed in Maryland and Virginia when the cession was made, and "_as it still continues in both of them_, it could not be abolished without a violation of that good faith which was implied in the cession." &c. The _sole argument_ is _not_ that exclusive _sovereignty_ has no power to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction, _nor_ that the powers of even _ordinary legislation_ cannot do it,--_nor_ that the clause granting Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District," gives no power to do it; but that the _unexpressed expectation_ of one of the parties that the other would not "in _all_ cases" _use_ the power which said party had consented _might be used_ "_in all cases_," _prohibits_ the use of it. The only cardinal point in the discussion, is here not only _yielded_, but formally laid down by the South as the leading article in their creed on the question of Congressional jurisdiction over slavery in the District. The _sole reason_ given why Congress should not abolish, and the sole evidence that if it did, such abolition would be a violation of "good faith," is that "_slavery still continues in those states_,"--thus explicitly admitting, that if slavery did _not_ "still continue" in those States, Congress _could_ abolish it in the District. The same admission is made also in the _premises_, which state that slavery existed in those states _at the time of the cession_, &c. Admitting that if it had _not_ existed there then, but had grown up in the District under _United States' laws_, Congress might constitutionally abolish it. Or that if the ceded parts of those states had been the _only_ parts in which slaves were held under their laws, Con
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   577   578   579   580   581   582   583   584   585   586   587   588   589   590   591   592   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   >>  



Top keywords:

District

 
slavery
 

abolish

 

question

 
Congress
 

states

 
existed
 

cession

 

explicitly

 

exclusive


violation

 

continues

 

legislation

 

States

 

abolition

 

jurisdiction

 

resolution

 
ground
 

article

 

leading


abandonment
 

Congressional

 
reason
 
Calhoun
 

consented

 

cardinal

 

including

 

prohibits

 
discussion
 

formally


yielded

 
slaveholding
 

finally

 

constitutionally

 

United

 

slaves

 

Admitting

 

senator

 

admitting

 

continue


premises

 

admission

 

evidence

 

expectation

 

advocated

 
Virginia
 

Maryland

 
senators
 

southern

 

abolished