Author :
Publisher :
ISBN 13 : 9781331076681
Total Pages : 48 pages
Book Rating : 4.84/5 ( download)
Book Synopsis The Northern Man With Southern Principles, and the Southern Man With American Principles (Classic Reprint) by :
Download or read book The Northern Man With Southern Principles, and the Southern Man With American Principles (Classic Reprint) written by and published by . This book was released on 2015-07-10 with total page 48 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Excerpt from The Northern Man With Southern Principles, and the Southern Man With American Principles Wl lH Southern Principles, Southern xM An VI Tii American Principles. The partisans of Mr. Van Bur km, in oiJer to recommend him to the suffrages of the South, have invented for him the title of the Northern Man with Southern Principles. Let us try this title by the test of evidence, and f.otnpare it with Gen. Harrisons claims, examined in the same way, to the favor of the South. I. The powek of the Ff.ukral Government to abolish Slavery in the District Of Columbia is rerrarded by all the slavpholdiiig States as a test question. What are the opinions of the two candidates on this question? Mr. Van BURExN Sopinion. On the23d of February, iSoG, Messrs. Junius Amis and others, citizens of North-CaroJina, addressed a letter to Mr. Van Buren, in which they say: A portion of your fellow.cit.izeiis in this snction, fp.elinsr a (oop anxi Hy as to your views on a topic which most vitally affc.clsour iinvKdiaie weljure and knpniness, liavo llioulit proper to propound lo you the following interrogatory, to whicli we wish an explicit answer: Do yon or do you notbelieve that Congress has the constitutional power to interfere with or abolisii slavery in the District of Columbia? On the Gth of March, 1836, Mr. Van Biiren answered the question in an argumentative and explanatory letter, in which he says: I would not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in pronouncing that Congress does not possL-ss the power of interfering with or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. This, though not as explicit in its language as it might have been, is explicit.enough in substance. The English of it is, that Mr. Van Buren DOEs beieve that Congress has the constitutional power to interfere with or abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. In a subsequent part of the same letter he says, if elected, I must go into the Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromi.dng opponent of any attempt, on the part of Congress, to abolish slavery in tiie Di.striel ot Columbia, against the wishes of the slaveholding States; and also with the dtirniination, ecjually decided, to resist the slightest interiei-enco with the subject in th 3 States where it exists. Gen. ItARRISON Sopinion. On the 30 th of S-ptember, 1836, .Judge John M.Berrien, of Georgia, addressed a letter to Gen. Harrison, in which the following question is askrd: Cm tlic Congress oi tlie United States, consistently with the Constitution, abolish slavery either in the States or in tlie District of Coliunbia? Gen. Harrison answers; I do not tliink that Congress can abolish, or in any manner interfere with slavery, as it exists in tiic Stales, but upon the application of the States, nor abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent of the States of Virginia and Maryland, and tlis people of the District. The firat would be, in my opinion, a palpable violation of the Constitution, and the latter a breach of faith towards the States 1 have mentioned, who would certainly not have made tlio cession, if they had supposed that it would ever be used for a purjioso so difterent from that which was its object, and so injurious to thein as the location of a free colored popul ition in the midst of their slave population of the same description. Nordo I believe that( Oiigr .-ss could deprive the poo)le of the District of Columbia of their property, without their consult. It would be reviving the doctrine of the tories of Great Britain, in relation to the powers of Parlia;neut over the Colonies, before the revolutionary war, and in direct hostility to the principle advance-d by Lord Chatham, that what was a mans own was absolutely and exclusively his own, and could not be taken from him without his consent, given by himself or his legal representative.
