Free Soil Banner, Indianapolis, Marion County, 8 September 1848 — Page 1

EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY W. B. GREER & L. WALLACE.]

“ HE IS THE FREEMAN, WHOM TRUTH MAKES FREE; AND ALL ARE SLAVES BESIDE.’’

[PRINTED BY DOUGLASS &. ELDER

VOL. I. PUBLICATION OFFICE OF THE BANNER IS ON PENNSYLVANIA STREET, Three doors north of Washington Street. Cass’s Nicholson Letter.

Washington, Dec. 24, 1847. Dear Sir: I have received your letter, and shall answer it as frankly as it was written. You ask me whether I am in favor of the acquisition of Mexican Territory, and what are my sentiments with regard to the Wilmot Proviso. I have so often and so explicitly sated my views of the first question, in the Senate, that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat them here. As you request it, however, I shall briefly give them. I think, then, that no peace should be granted to Mexico, until a reasonable indemnity is obtained for the injuries which she has done us. The territorial extent of this indemnity is, in the first instance, a subject of Executive consideration. There the constitution has placed it, and there I am willing to leave it; not only because I | have full confidence in its judiciousexercise, but because, in the ever-vary-ing circumstances of a war, it would be indiscreet, by a public declaration, to commit the country to any line of indemnity which might otherwise be enlarged, as the obstinate injustice of the enemy prolongs the contest, with its loss of blood and treasure. It appears to me that the kind of metaphysical magnanimity, which would reject all indemnity at the close of a bloody and expensive war, brought on by a direct attack upon our troops by the enemy, and preceded by a succession of unjust acts for a series of years, is as unworthy of the age in which we live, as it is revolting to the common sense and practice of mankind. It would conduce but little to our future security, or indeed to our present reputation, to declare that we repudiate all expectation of compensation from the Mexican Government, and are fighting, not for any practical result, but for some vague, perhaps philanthropic object, which escapes my penetration, and must be defined by those who assume this new principle of national inter-communication. All wars are to be deprecated, as well by the statesman as by the philanthropist. They are great evils; but there are greater evils than these, and submission to injustice is among them.— The nation, which should refuse to defend its rights and its honor, when assailed, would soon have neither to defend; and when driven to war, it is not by professions of disinterestedness and declarations of magnanimity, that its rational objects can be best obtained, or other nations taught a lesson of forbearance—the strongest security for permanent peace. We are at war with Mexico, its vigorous prosecution is the surest means of its speedy termination, and ample indemnity the surest guaranty against the recurrence of such injustice as provoked it. The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress, and by the public press. I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject—in my own as well as others: and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it involves should be kept out of the National Legislature and left to the people of the Confederacy in their respective local governments. The whole subject is a comprehensive one, and fruitful of important consequences. It would be ill-timed to discuss it here. I shall not assume that resposible task, but shall confine myself to such general views as are necessary to the fair exhibition of my opinions. We may well regret the existence of Slavery in the Southern States,and wish they had been saved from its introduction. But there it is, and not by the act of the present generation; and we must deal with it as a great practical question, involving the most momentous consequences. We have neither the right nor the power to touch it where it exists; and if we had both, their exercise, by any means heretofore suggested, might lead to results which no wise man would willingly encounter, and which no good man could contemplate without anxiety. The theory of our Government presupposes that its various members have reserved to themselves the regulation of all subjects relating to what may be termed their internal policy. They are sovereign within their own boundaries, except in those cases where they have surrendered to the General Government a portion of their rights, in order to give effect to the object of the Union, whether these concern For-

INDIANAFOLIS, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1848.

NO. 3.

eign nations or the several States themselves. Local institutions, if I may so speak, whether they have reference to Slavery or to any other relations, domestic or public, are left to local authority, either original or derivative.— Congress has no right to say that there shall be Slavery in New York, or that there shall be no Slavery in Georgia; nor is there any other human power but Ihe people of those States respectively, which can change the relations existing therein; and they can say, if they will, We will have Slavery in the former, and we will abolish it in the latter. In vaiious respects the Territories differ from the States. Some of their rights are inchoate,and they do not possess the peculiar attributes of sovereignty. Their relation to the General Government is very imperfectly defined by the Constitution; and it will be found, upon examination, that in that instrument the only grant of power concerning them is conveyed in the phrase “Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations, respecting territory and other property belonging to the United States.” Certainly this phraseology is very loose, if it were designed lo include in the grant the whole power of legislation over persons as well as things. The expression, “the territory and other property,” fairly construed relates to the public lands, as such, to arsenals, dockyards, forts, ships, and all the various kinds of property which the United States may and must possess. But surely the simple authority to dispose of and regulate these, does not extend to the unlimited power of legislation; to the passage of all laws, in the most general acceptation of the word, which, by the way, is carefully excluded from the sentence. And, indeed, if it were so, it would render unnecessary another provision of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to legislate, with the consent of the States, respectively, over all places purchased for the “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards,” etc. This being the “property” of the United States, if the power to make “needful rules and regulations concerning” them includes the general power of legislation, then tho grant of authority to regulate the “territory and other property of the United States,” is unlimited, wherever subjects are found for its operation, and its exercise need no auxiliary provision. If, on the other hand, it does not include such power of legislation over the “other property” of the United States, then it does not include it over their “territory:” for the same terms which grant the one, grant the other. Territory is here classed with property, and treated as such; and the object was evidently to enable the General Government, as a property-hold-er,—which, from necessity, it must be, —to manage, preserve and “dispose of” such property as it might possess, and which authority is essential almost to its being. But the lives and persons of our citizens, with the vast variety of objects connected with them, cannot be controlled by an authority which is merely called into existence for the purpose of making rules and regulations tor the disposition and management of property. Such, it appears to me, would be the construction put upon this provision of the Constitution, were this question now first presented for consideration and not controlled by imperious circumstances. The original Ordinance of the Congress of the Confederation, passed in 1787, and which was the only act upon this subject in force at the adoption of the Constitution, provided a complete frame of Government for the country North of the Ohio, while in a Territorial condition, and for its eventual admission in separate States into the Union. And the persuasion, that this Ordinance contained within itself all the necessary means of execution, probably prevented any direct reference to the subject in the Constitution, further than vesting in Congress the right to admit the States formed under it into the Union. However, circumstances arose, which required legislation, as well over the territory North of the Ohio, as over other territory, both within and without the original Union, ceded to the General Government, and, at various times, a moreenlarged power has been exercised over the Territories.—meaning thereby the different Territorial Governments,— than is conferred by the limited grant referred to. How far an existing necessity may have operated in producing this legislation, and thus extending, by rather a violent implication, powers not directly given, I know not. But certain it is, that the principle of interference should not he carried beyond the necessary implication which produces it. It should be limited to the. creation of proper governments for new countries, acquired or settled,and

to the necessary provision for their eventual admission into the Union;— leaving, in the meantime,the people inhabiting them, to regulate their internal concerns in their own way. They are just as capable of doing so, as the people of the States; and they can do so, at any rate, as soon as their political independence is recognized by admission into the Union. During this temporary condition, it is hardly expedient to call into exercise a doubtful and invidious authority, which questions the intelligence of a respectable portion of our citizens, and whose limitation, whatever it may be, will be rapidly approaching its termination,—an authority which would give to Congress despotic power, uncontrolled by the Constitution, over most important sections of our common country.— For, if the relation of master and servant may be regulated or annihilated by its legislation, so may the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, and of any other condition which our institutions and the habits of our society recognize. What would be thought if Congress should undertake to prescribe the terms of marriage in New York, or to regulate the authority of parents over their children in Pennsylvania! And yet it would be as vain to seek one justifying the interference of the National Legislature in the cases referred to in the original States of the Union. 1 speak here of the inherent power of Congress, and do not touch the question of such contricts as may be formed with new States when admitted into the Confederacy. Of all the questions that can agitate us, those which are merely sectional in their character are the most dangerous and the most to be deprecated. The warning voice of him who, from his character, and services and virtue, had the best right to warn us, proclaimed to his countrymen in his Farewell Address,—that monument of wisdom for him, as I hope it will be of safety for them,—how much we had to apprehend from measures peculiarly affecting geographical portions of our country. The grave circumstances in which we are now placed, make these words of safety; for J am satisfied, from all I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to engraft the principles of the Wilmot Proviso upon the legislation of this Government, and apply them to new territory, should new territory be acquired, would seriously affect our tranquility. I do not suffer myself to foresee or to foretell the consequences that would ensue; for I trust and believe there is good sense and good feeling enough in the country to avoid them, by avoiding all occasions which might lead to them. Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving to the People of any Territory which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it for themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because: 1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity,—tho establishment of Territorial Governments when needed,—leaving to the inhabitants all the right compatible with the relations they bear to the Confederation. 2. Because I believe this measare, if adopted, would weaken, if not impair, the union of the States ; and would sow the seeds of future discord, which would grow up and ripen into an abundant harvest of calamity. 3. Because I believe a general conviction that such a proposition would succeed, would lead to an immediate withholding of the supplies, and thus to a dishonorable termination of the war. I think no dispassionate observer at the seat of government can doubt this result. 4. If, however, in this I am under a misapprehension, I am under none in the practical operation of this restriction, if adopted by Congress, upon a treaty of peace making any acquisition of Mexican territory. Such a treaty would be rejected just as certainly, as presented to the Senate. More than one-third of that body would vote against it, viewing such a principle as an exclusion of the citizens of the slaveholding States from a participation in the benefits acquired by the treasure and exertions of all, and which should be common to all. I am repeating,— neither advancing nor defending these views. That branch of the subject does not lie in my way, and I shall not turn aside to seek it. In this aspect of the matter, the people of the United States must choose between this restriction and the extension of the territorial limits. They cannot have both, and which they will surrender must depend upon the representatives first, and then if these fail them, upon themselves. 5. But after all it seems to be generally conceded, that this restriction, if carried into effect, could not operate upon any State to be formed from newly acquired territory. The well known attributes of sovereignty, recognized by us as belonging to State Governments, would sweep before them any

such barrier, and would leave the people to express and exert their will at pleasure. Is the object, then, of temporary exclusion for so short a period as the duration of the territorial governments, worth the price at which it would be purchased?—worth the discord it would engender, the trial to which it would expose our Union, and the evils that would be the certain consequence, let that trial result as it might? As to the course, which has been intimated rather than proposed, of engrafting such a restriction upon any treaty of acquision, I persuade mysell it would find but little favor in any portion of this country. Such an arrangement would render Mexico a party, having a right to interfere in our interna! institutions in questions left by the Constitution to the State Governments, and would inflict a serious blow upon our fundamental principles. Few indeed, I trust there are among us, who would thus grant to a foreign power the right to inquire into the constitution and conduct of the sovereign States of the Union ; and if there are any I am not among them, and never shall be. To the people of this country, under God, now and hereafter, are its destinies committed,and we want no foreign power to interrogate us, treaty in hand, and to say,—why have you done this, or why have you left this undone ? Our own dignity and the principles of national independence, unite to repel such a proposition. But there is another important consideration, which ought not to be lost sight of in the investigation of this subject. The question that presents itself, is not a question of the increase but of the diffusion of Slavery. Whether its sphere be stationary or progressive, its amount will be the same. The rejection of this restriction will not add one to the class of servitude, nor will its adoption give freedom to a single being who is now placed therein. The same numbers will be spread over greater territory; and so far as compression, with less abundance of the necessaries of life, is an evil, so far will that evil be mitigated by transporting Slaves to a new country and giving them a larger space to occupy. 1 say this in the event of the extension of slavery over any new acquisition. But can it go there? This may well be doubted. All the descriptions which reach us of the condition of the Californias and New Mexico, to the acquisition of which our efforts seem at present directed, unite in representing those countries as agricultural regions, similar in their products to our middle States, and generally unfit for the production of the great staples, which can alone render slave-labor valuable. If we are not grossly deceived,—and it is difficult to conceive how we can be,— the inhabitants of those regions, whether they depend upon their ploughs or their herds cannot be slaveholders — Involuntary labor, requiring the investment of large capital, can only he profitable when employed in the produciion of a few favored articles, confined by nature to special districts, and paying larger returns than the usual agricultural products spread over more considerable portions of the earth. In the able letter of Mr. Buchanan upon this subject, not long since given the public, he presents similar considerations with great force. “Neither,” says the distinguished writer, “the soil, the climate, nor the productions of California, South of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, nor indeed any portion of it North or South, is adapted to slave-labor ; and besides, every facility would be there afforded for the slave to escape from his master. Such property would be entirely insecure in any part of California. It is morally impossible, therefore, that a majority of the emigrants to that portion of the territory South of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, which will be chiefly composed of our citizens, will ever reestablish slavery within its limits. “In regard to New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, the question has already been settled by the admission of Texas into the Union. “Should we acquire territory beyond the Rio Grande and east of the Rocky Mountains, it is still more impossible that a majority of the people would consent to re-establish slavery. They are themselves a colored population, and among them, the negro does not belong to a degraded race.” With this last remark Mr. Walker fully coincides in his letter written in 1844 upon the annexation of Texas, and which everywhere produced so favorable an impression upon the public mind, as to have conduced very materially to the accomplishment of that great measure. “Beyond the Del Norte,” says Mr. Walker, “slavery will not pass; not only because lorbidden by law, but because the. colored race there preponderates in the ratio of ten to one over the whites ; and holding as they do, the government and most of the offices in their possession, they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored race, which makes and executes the laws of the country.” The question, it will therefore be seen on examination, does not regard the exclusion of slavery from a region where

it now exists, but a prohibition against introduction where it does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of nature, “it is morally impossible,” as Mr. Buchanan says, that it can never re-establish itself. It augurs well for the permanency of our Confederation, that, during more than half a century, which has elapsed since the establishment of this government, many serious questions, and some of the highest importance, have agitated the public mind, and more than once, threatened the gravest consequences, but they have all in succession passed away, leaving our institutions unscathed, and our country advancing in numbers, power, and wealth, and in all the other elements of national prosperity, with a rapidity unknown in ancient or modern days. In times of political excitement when difficult and delicate questions present themselves for solution, there is one ark of safety for us— and that is, an honest appeal to the fundamental principles of our Union, and a stern determination to abide their dictates. This course of proceeding has carried us in safety through many a trouble, and will carry us safely through many more, should many more assail us. The Wilmot Proviso seeks to take from its legitimate tribunal a question of domestic policy, having no relation to the Union, as such, and to transfer if to another, created by the people for a special purpose, and foreign to the subject-matter involved in this issue. By going back to our true principles, we go back to the road of peace and safety. Leave to the people, who will be affected by this question, to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original principles of our Government and furnish another guarantee for its permanency and prosperity. 1 am, sir, respectfully, Your obedient servant, LEWIS CASS. A. O. P. Nicholson, Esq., Nashville. The Herald on Van Buren. The Herald has commenced rummaging its old files of electioneering documents against Mr. Van Buren. Mister Van Buren, we say, oddly as it sounds at the present day to call a Presidential nominee anything but a General. Well, it has fished up his vote upon an Act for prohibiting Deputy Postmasters from receiving and transmitting, &.c., certain matter in and through the mails, which was, on the 2d of June, 1836, engrossed and read a third time, by the casting vote of Mr. Van Buren, then Vice President, and President of the Senate. Now the truth is, even this vote has hardly ever been soberly considered by even strong anti-slavery men. They very properly recollect, that the vote was not on a final passage, and that it would have been an unwarrantable exercise of the one man power, had Mr. Van Buren, by his own vote, taken the subject from the consideration of the Senate, where it was disposed of in a much more impressive and democratic manner on the 8th of June, 1836. On that day, on motion of Mr. Calhoun, the bill was taken up for a final action, when it was rejected by a good majority of six Senatorial votes. Had Mr. Van Buren killed it by his single casting vote, the impressive lesson taught the Slave Power by the final, decisive vote, would never have been on record. A man of Mr. Van Buren’s sagacity, could not but have foreseen the result, and no man, we venture to say, was better satisfied than he, with the large majority against its passage. So much for this clap-trap, in reference to which the Herald exclaims: “Here, then, are the great principles of human freedom, for which Mr. Van Buren contended while in power!”— the insincerity of which exclamation is seen in the fact, that it is well known to all, that Mr. Van Buren did not contend for this bill at all. He was only the presiding officer of the Senate, and not a Senator.— Cleveland Time Democrat. The Alarm.—It seems that both the old parties have taken the alarm, and united for common defence against the people’s Free Soil movement. They denominate it a grand conspiracy against them both, and salute each other as loving brethren in a crusade against Van Buren, Adams, and Freedom.— Both the Taylor and Cass papers seem to have forgotten the issues between them, to-wit whether Taylor swore profanely at some of the volunteers, and whether Cass made presents to Louis Phillippe, and pitched at once with pike, gun, and claymore, into the Free Soilers. This is very much like the course persued by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were most bitterly opposed to each other, hut on the appearance of the Carpenter’s son, united for the purpose of crucifying him, and saving themselves. Go ahead, you have illustrious precedents.—Cin. Signal.

We give below some extracts from the speech of Hon. Mr. Brinkerhoff, of Ohio, made at the Buffalo Convention. He. was a democrat, and a member of the last Congress. Some of my friends have said, “Brinkerhoff, you are no Democrat.” Why? “Because you don’t vote for Cass.” [Laughter.] Now, 1 have always been under the impression—the silly impression, it may be thought— that democracy consisted, not in men —nor in organizations—but in principles. If the Wilmot Proviso is not democracy, then Gen. Cass’s democracy is entirely new. It is very green. [Laughter.] For, not longer ago than one year, he was loud in his complaints against John Davis for talking against time, and thus preventing him from having an opportunity for voting in its favor. Lewis Cass was then no democrat, according to the logic of his advocates, or else he has flopped over.— Shall I, therefore, turn? I am not made of such flexible material. Why, the entire North, with the exception of three votes, went for that Proviso. Where are they now? Gone off' after a mess of political pottage. Let them enjoy it. [It may he poison to them.] No fear, Nothing will injure them, except an infusion of honesty. Give me the joy which arises from the sense of honor maintained—duty discharged, and freedom defended. [Applause.]— One year after that time I heard Gen. Cass speak in the Senate of the United States., He then professed to be in favor of the principle, but said it was not the time to act upon it. But a short time before he thought it was both the time for action and expedient to act. Now I cannot turn with him. I defy Gen. Cass to contradict this statement. If he attempts it, 1 can bring the testimony of nine men—every one of them as good as myself-— to substantiate what I have said. [We don’t want them—your word is sufficient.] He knows it is true, and hence the expression in his letter, “he thinks there has been a change coming on in the public mind, and in his own.”— [Great laughter.] I would respect Gen. Cass’s opinions, if I thought they were sincere. I respect the sincere opinions of any man though they lead to change, for I have experienced such myself. But I believe General Cass thinks as 1 do, that the Proviso is both expedient and constitutional. I believe that he put his hand in his bosom and took out his soul, and laid it out in view of the devil, for the purpose of receiving a little temporary elevation. Let the North repudiate him. J believe the South will, and if they do, perhaps there will be others getting up parties to burn barns. [Laughter.] Gentlemen, I said I would be brief. [Go on, go on; we like the way you talk.] 1 cannot go on—my health is feeble—it has always been feeble, and nothing else; and thanking you for your kindness, i will relieve you.— [Great applause, and three cheers for Brinkerhoff] An Anecdote. A zealous whig of our county the other day accosted a prominent member of the Quaker Society from Clinton county thus:—“Well, John, I hear the Friends are going to support Taylor this fall. How is it with them over your way?” “Friend----- thee has been misinformed. So far as I know, our Society will not support Zachary.” “But are you not going to support him yourself! Certainly he is a less evil than Cass; and in 1844 you blamed the Libertv men for not choosing between evils as much as I.” “ Thee is right. I still hold to the same general principle. It’s a good one, and ought always to be observed. Had our liberty friends acted upon it, in 1344, we should not have had Texas with all her slavery. We would have escaped the dreadful war with Mexico, with all its attendant evils.— We should not have a man of blood for our candidate now. But there are cases when this principle does not apply. When I was a young man I ran a flat-boat down the Ohio river. I was floating down the current rapidly one morning, when I beheld a little in advance of my craft two snags in the river, one a little larger than the other, but either big enough to sink my boat. Now I did not stop to choose between these snags, no more than I would between Lewis Cass and Zachary Taylor, for either of them is so great an evil as to make an utter shipwreck of all sound principles, and especially of our good old whig principles of 1844, which thee speaks of.” “Good morning, John. The best of folks will differ. How did you leave Polly and the children!”—Western Star. Santa Ana and wife are still residing near Kingston. They live in magnificent style.