extension of slavery to the free territory lately annexed. Without the sanction of law, slavery can no more exist in a territory than a man can breathe without air. Slaves are not property where they are not made so by the municipal law. The legislature of a territory can exercise no power which is not conferred on it by act of Congress."

If it is wrong for a people themselves to submit to the usurpation of a government, it is equally wrong for them to attempt to domineer over another people. The principle of self-government can in no way be violated without injuring as well the oppressor as the oppressed. It is a remarkable fact, that the only occasion on which serious difficulties now spring up between parties threatening the stability of the Union, have been based solely upon this local legislation for distant people, or what may be called, the imperial legislation of Congress. The strife is between parties uninterested as to what local laws they shall pass for other people without asking their assent. If the right of those people to make their own laws was recognised, all difficulty would cease. All parties in the Union agree that the institution of slavery depends upon local law, and that the people of the several localities in the states have alone the right to make those local laws; and yet, as soon as a purely municipal matter presents itself in the territories, parties to the federal Union begin to quarrel as to what local laws they shall make through the instrumentality of Congress for the people in the new locality. Thus Mr. Webster, in a late speech, states the matter as follows;

The Southern states have peculiar laws, and by those laws there is property in slaves. This is purely local. The real meaning then, of Southern gentlemen, in making this complaint is, that they cannot go into the territories of the United States, carrying with them their own peculiar local law-a law which creates property in persons. This, according to their own statement, is all the ground of complaint they have. Now here, I think, gentlemen are unjust toward us. How unjust they are others will judge-generations that will come after us will judge. It will not be contended that this sort of personal slavery exists by general law. It exists only by local law. I do not mean to deny the validity of the local law where it is established; but it is, after all, nothing but local law. It is nothing more. And wherever that local law does not extend, property in persons does not exist. Well, sir, what is now the demand on the part of our Southern friends? They say, We will carry our local laws with us wherever we go. We insist that Congress does us injustice unless it establishes in the territory into which we wish to go, our own local laws.' This demand 1, for one, resist, and shall resist. It goes upon the idea that there is an inequality, unless persons under this local law, and holding property by authority of that law, can go into new territory and there establish that local law, to the exclusion of other laws."

If a majority of the people in the new territories choose to institute those local laws, why should they not? On what grounds can the right of the people of a new territory be denied the right common to all other people on the continent of making their own local laws? To assert that they cannot, is to assert that they are as much slaves as the blacks held in bondage; and yet this despotic power is that claimed for Congress in its relation to new territories. While members exerted themselves to prevent the insertion of a principle in relation to black slaves in the Oregon bill, they passed the following in relation to the white inhabitants of that country:

"All the laws passed by the legislative assembly, shall be submitted to the Congress of the states, and if disapproved, shall be null and void."

This is not an idle form, inasmuch as we have seen Congress, on more than on one occasion, step in, and, with absolute power, annul the will of the whole people, as expressed in a law passed by their delegates. Such persons are slaves themselves. What is claimed for the people of the

territories, is the right to make their own laws irrespective of Congress, and this Mr. Van Buren, in one of his recent apologies for his apostacy, calls an "absurd pretension," as follows:

"It is further contended, that slaves are so far to be regarded as property, as to authorize their owners to carry them into any of the territories, and to hold them there, notwithstanding any act which Congress may pass upon the subject. If Congress have the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the territories, its laws place the subject on the same footing there as the state laws do in the states. As well, therefore, might the slaveholder contend that he can bring his slaves into a state which prohibits slavery, as that he can bring them into territories where slavery is prohibited by Congress. If his slave runs away, and enters one of the nonslaveholding states, he does not thereby become free, but shall be delivered up upon the claim of the person entitled to his services. But this is not in consequence of the recognition of the right of property in such person, notwithstanding the state laws, but in virtue of an express article of the constitution, which constitutes one of its compromises upon the subject of slavery. This view of the matter was placed in a clear light in the recent debates, by one of the oldest and most distinguished members of the Senate, when he insisted that the claim, on the part of the slaveholders, though nominally to remove their property, was, in reality, to transport their laws into the territories. One has, therefore, only to imagine a territory governed by the various and conflicting laws of thirty independent states, to appreciate the absurdity of the pretension."

We thus find Mr. Van Buren endorsing Mr. Daniel Webster's views in opposition to the right of the people to make their own laws; and when we reflect how recently Mr. Webster, in his argument before the United States Supreme Court on the Rhode Island question, opposed popular rights, we become aware of the great revolution which Mr. Van Buren's ideas have undergone in a short time.

These incongruities exhibit the difficulty of making former democratic professions square with present federalist affinities. The people of the several states have, in the exercise of their sovereignty, made laws in relation to slavery, irrespective of the constitution, and these laws have emanated from the voice of the majority. The people of territories have the same inherent right to pass municipal laws for their own government -a right which has, however, been violated by the usurpations of Congress. Mr. Van Buren's present federalist affinities induce him to regard the right to make laws as coming down from rulers, rather than coming up from the people. Iowa, as an instance, was last year a territory inhabited by people from "thirty independent states"-this year she is a state, with her own laws. Mr. Van Buren thinks it would have been an absurd pretension" for these people to have had their own local laws last year. Wherein the removal of Congressional usurpation makes it less absurd this year is not so apparent; probably should "circumstances again change," Mr. Van Buren is prepared to show that it is an "absurd pretension" for any people to make their own laws. To say that the people of territories have no rights because they have never been allowed to exercise them, is not in accordance with the spirit of the age, which is one of popular progress, and not as the seceders from the democratic party would have us believe, of consolidated central power over the local laws of communities.

Up to this moment, no parties except the ultra abolitionists, contend that the southern states have not a right to hold slaves. We have, however, conclusive evidence that Mr. Van Buren and his followers are prepared to take that ground, the moment that their personal interests or malevolence will seemingly be promoted by avowing it. This proof has been afforded in the last letter of Mr. Van Buren, in relation to slavery in

the District of Columbia. The following extracts are from his inaugural message, from his Utica letter in June, and his letter accepting the Buffalo nomination of the whigs and ultra abolitionists:

Inaugural

"Perceiving, before my elec. tion, the deep interest this sub. ject was beginning to excite, I then declared that, if the desire of those of my countrymen who were favorable to my election was gratified, I must go into the Presidential chair the infexible and uncompromising opponent of every attempt, on the part of Congress, to abolish slavery in the Dis trict of Columbia, against the wishes of the slaveholding states; and also with a determination equally decided, to resist the slightest interference with it in the states where it exists.""

Utica Letter, June 20, 1848.

"This is not a new opinion on my part, nor the first occasion on which it has been avowed. Whilst the candidate of my friends for the Presidency, I distinctly announced my opinion in favor of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, although I was, for reasons which were then, and are still satisfactory to my mind, very decidedly opposed to its exercise there,"

August 22, 1848.

"I must not, however, be understood. either by what I now say, or by what was said in my letter to the New York delegation at Utica, as repeating the declaration that I would, if elected, withhold my approval from a bill for the abolition of slavery in the District. I could not now give any such assurance, for the reason, that the circumstances by which the question is now surrounded are widely and materially different from what they were when the declaration was made; and because, upon a question of expediency, circumstances must control."

The injudicious may smile at the unblushing profligacy here apparent; but the democrat and the patriot cannot but grieve that this man has, by their choice, once had charge of the destinies of the country. "Upon a question of expediency, circumstances must control"-principles, patriotism, honor, even common honesty, weigh as nothing; "expediency," even in a matter of national existence, is the only rule of action. How soon may it become expedient to avow ultra abolition views, and coolly state that "circumstances" are changed, and they "control"! What are the circumstances that have induced the abandonment of former avowed principles? They are simply that Mr. Van Buren is with an Adams, the co-nominee of whigs and abolitionists, and under these "circumstances" it is "expedient" to abandon former professions, and to progress in their abandonment as circumstances continue to alter. The immortal Jefferson, in warning the country against this very movement which Mr. Van Buren heads, strongly pointed out the progressive nature of this fanatic doctrine, and Mr. Van Buren's immediate personal followers already avow the dissolution of the Union to be a desirable object.

The tone taken in regard to the South, not only in the violent party journals, but even, in many cases, by men of high pretensions and great personal respectability on the floor of Congress and elsewhere, is very little less bitter and offensive, than that of the British journals in regard to the country at large. Following exactly the predictions of Washington, that badly ambitious men will "misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts," the slavery of the South is represented as a wrong inflicted upon the North, not as an evil forced upon the South by our forefathers of Old and New-England. The South is charged with a spirit of sectional aggrandizement at the expense of the North. Threats of disunion are openly made, even in the imposing form of resolutions of State Legislatures; and societies professing a philanthropic character publicly announce, and are actually carrying into effect, the intention to agitate the country with a view to the dissolution of the Union.

We are told that we are, always have been—and, until the constitution shall have been amended, always shall be-governed by a junto of slaveholders. This supposition, if admitted, would lead to conclusions not very palatable perhaps to those who make it. If the miracles of success and prosperity which have uniformly attended our progress as a nation, are to be attributed to the influence of a junto of slave holders, it will be

necessary to conclude that the government of such a junto, judged by its results the only sure test of the character of any political institutionsis one of the best that has ever been tried. But the supposition is itself entirely erroneous. If the South has exercised a good deal of political influence, it has not been because she held slaves-a circumstance which, on the contrary, has greatly diminished, and is regularly diminishing, her sectional weight in the Union-but because she has produced such men as Washington, Henry, Marshall, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Weir; not to mention living characters of hardly less distinction and dignity. Most of these persons, it is true, held slaves, but they exercised influence, not as slaveholders, but as men. If these men, or some of them, have possessed more weight in the Union than others of equal merit at the North, it has been, we apprehend, not because they held slaves, but because they took views of the policy of the country more in accordance with the genius of our institutions, and which, for that reason, have ultimately obtained the almost unanimous assent of the people. It is a fact which cannot be disputed, and need not be disguised, that on all the great questions that have necessarily agitated the country, the South has taken the side which has finally carried the people with it; and, what is still more remarkable, account for it as we may, the side most favorable to liberty. We allude, of course, to dominant parties and the general tendency of opinion. In the controversies which grew out of the foundation and construction of the Federal Constitution—and in those which succeeded, and had their origin in the revolutionary struggles of Europe-in the disputes with Great Britain. respecting neutral rights-on the great financial questions of the Bank and Protection-we find the North, right or wrong, uniformly on the side of Power-the South on that of Liberty. Even on isolated questions, like that of the acquisition of Louisiana-which seem to have no connection with general principles-the South has had the fortune to espouse the opinion that has finally been sanctioned by the people.

It will not be pretended-at least at the North-that a community of slaveholders is naturally, as such, more favorable to liberal principles of government, than one composed entirely of freemen: but it is not very difficult to imagine that in a country like ours, where all the institutions are based on the principles of liberty, the supporters of liberal principles should regularly maintain the ascendency. How it has happened that the slaveholding South should have uniformly raised the standard of Liberty and the free north that of Power, is a curious question, which has often been asked, but never satisfactorily answered. Perhaps the native generosity and lofty spirit of the South are better guides to the judgment than our vaunted Northern calculation. The fact is certain; and it is in this fact, taken in connection with the power of steadiness which Southern statesmen have evinced in supporting their opinions in the national councils, that we must look for the cause of Southern preponderance. The South has exercised influence, not as a community of slaveholders, but as the able, vigorous and eloquent champion of popular and state rights-in one word, of Liberty.

The remedy for the evils which now threaten us is for the Democratic party as one man to resist any attempt of Congress to interfere with the local laws of any community under the pretence of "safe precedents," whether situated in territories or in states. If Congress may interfere with local laws at all, Mr. Van Buren affords a lesson that it may become "expedient" to interfere with them in states; and in that case "circumstances will control." This whole matter of Territorial Government is a monstrous appendage to government patronage which should at once

be pruned away, preparatory to those reforms in other branches of patronage which we have heretofore strongly advocated. The right of the states to form their own local laws is at this moment acknowledged. As soon as the same right is accorded the territories, the whole fabric of dispute between sections of the union on that subject falls to the ground. The Constitution guarantees to any state in the Union a republican form of government, although Congress governs territories in the monarchical form. The old constitution of Rhode Island was clearly a wrong upon those deprived of the right of suffrage. Suppose the two great sections of the Union had taken sides upon the matter, and threatened dissolution unless Rhode Island adopted some organization thoroughly democratic as guaranteed by the federal constitution, would not the world say we were mad to go back to a state of civil war and anarchy for a matter in which none had a direct interest? Precisely such is the question of local law in distant territories; and it is urged on by most profligate politicians, aided by negroes and English emissaries, who spoke at the Buffalo Convention. In reflecting upon these facts, no American will hesitate to exert himself to crush forever the infamous disorganizing party formed of Whigs, renegade Democrats, negroes, abolitionists and freebooters of every hue. It will be borne in mind that this party is the offspring of government patronage. That it was organized in New-York under the corrupt system devised by Mr. Van Buren, and it acted with the Democratic party only so long as that party countenanced Mr. Van Buren. The moment he was dropped for more stable men, the disgusting spectacle is exhibited of an ex-President acting with United States salaried officers in calling meetings to interfere with the popular franchise, and these cliques of office-holders corresponding with affiliated knots of persons living on the public money, seek to defeat the nominee of the people in convention. In the pages of this Review, in describing the effects of public patronage upon public morals, we remarked Sept., 1845

"If the superior officer has no interests but those of the public to serve, he will select such men for the public offices as will most redound to his own dignity and that of the offices to be filled. Those who are least fitted therefore for the places they aspire to, will be last thought of in such a case. Sensible of this, they will ally themselves to the fortunes of some man upon whose gratitude they can depend if he should be successful. But if the candidate be a man who will submit to even an implied stipulation in favor of the men to whom such a stipulation is necessary, he, in turn, must be wholly unworthy of the place to which he aspires. Nay, if he will consent to award to the less worthy applicants the offices whose advowson he enjoys, even as a reward for services voluntarily rendered, or for any cause other than through his own ignorance, he is a bad man and a dangerous public officer. But the less deserving, and also the more necessitous, will insist upon having such a prospect secured to them in some form. If they cannot have it from one man, they will have it from another; and they'll ransack all the asylums of wrecked and decayed politicians in the country until they discover one, as they always can, fit for their uses. Actuated, then, by an interest more strong than is felt by the more eligible class of political aspirants, and increasingly stronger than that of the ordinary citizens, they devote themselves to the success of their man or men, with a devotion and an unscrupulousness as disproportioned as are their merits to those of the other two classes. The interest in these labors becomes reciprocal. The candidate may have tried in vain for a fair nomination from the people; he may lack some element of character which is fatal to his legitimate suecess; he consorts by instinct with his kind; he promises everything that is necessary to beget efficiency in his backers; he is chosen; and every office over which he can exert any control is billeted with some of his instruments. That this kind of success is practicable-nay is common, no one with the experience of however short a political life, can question. If it be practicable, it must be profitable. If profitable, it will be prosecuted by every office-waiter sufficiently easy in his morals to use the means."