Article Title

A Contest of Principle.

Authors

Newspaper Title

Detroit Free Press

Publication Date

2-10-1854

Publication Place

Detroit, Michigan

Event Topic

Nebraska Bill (Jan-May 1854)

Political Party

Democratic

Region

free state

Disclaimer

Please Note: Some editorials in this collection contain offensive language, opinions, and other content. The editorials serve as evidence of the time period in which they were created and enable us to engage in more truthful conversations about history. The views expressed in these editorials do not reflect Furman University's values or our commitment to embrace meaningful diversity and equality in all of our endeavors. If you have questions or concerns, please e-mail digitalcollections@furman.edu.

Quote

The only serious danger to the permanency of our institutions is the proclivity of the central power to interfere in the rights of the States.

Document Type

Article (Journal or Newsletter)

Full Text Transcription

When, prior to the American revolution, the King and Parliament of Great Britain attempted to make laws for the Colonies, our sturdy forefathers resisted the encroachment, and chose the alternative of war, rather than submit to oppression. The principle which claims for Congress at the present day the right to legislate for the Territories is identical with that which England then claimed, and which the Colonies resisted.

The revolution was emphatically a contest whether the people of America should govern themselves, or Great Britain should govern them. The present struggle in Congress upon Mr. Douglass' bill is whether the people of the Territories shall control their own affairs, or the General Government shall control them.

In settling the fundamental principle included in this latter issue, it is of infinitesimal consequence whether or not a few miserable negroes shall go into Nebraska. Had Congress spent the same time in legislating for white people that it has for negroes during the past ten years, the general interests of the Union would have been greatly advanced -- the would have enjoyed more happiness -- and the limits of slavery would to-day be more circumscribed than they are. The only serious danger to the permanency of our institutions is the proclivity of the central power to interfere in the rights of the States. When Congress undertakes to say that this or that institution or regulation shall not exist within the limits of certain territory, is says what it has no constitutional warrant for saying, and strike a blow at State rights which the inhabitants of no State will tolerate.

It is, in reality, of the least practical importance whether the Missouri compromise is regarded as abrogated or not. The act is utterly without force or effect, for as Mr. Clay said, in speaking of the Wilmot proviso, "if it were adopted and applied to any Territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such Territory were admitted as a State into the Union." But, as establishing a great principle of government, it is of vast importance that the Missouri compromise shall be treated as a nullity. It is demanded of Congress that the assumption of a right to legislate for the Territories shall no longer be maintained, tacitly or otherwise.

Edited/Proofed by

Entered by Lloyd Benson, Not proofed

Identifier

mifpkn540210a

Rights

This item is in the public domain, and can be used by anyone without restriction.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

Event Location

 
COinS
 

A Contest of Principle.

The only serious danger to the permanency of our institutions is the proclivity of the central power to interfere in the rights of the States.