Why then could
not a planter from Louisiana take his slaves to Nebraska? Liquor and
slaves were property. Who said so? The fugitive-slave clause of the
Constitution, and the fugitive-slave law of 1850 which Lincoln admitted
he would not alter.
But after the liquor was in Kansas or the slave in Nebraska could they
flourish? That depended on the territorial law, the attitude of the
people. Did Congress have to pass favorable legislation? From what
clause flowed the duty and the power? Did a territorial legislature have
power to pass favorable legislation? It was not called upon to do so by
anything in the Federal Constitution. Therefore, the mere right to take
a slave into free territory under the Dred Scott decision, take it as
property, was a naked right without local support. "This popular
sovereignty is as thin as soup made from the shadow of a starved
pigeon," said Lincoln. Nevertheless, it was what it was and no more. And
Lincoln's catch question on the legal right to keep slavery out of the
territories did not catch Douglas. The mere right to take a slave into
free territory could coexist with no protective legislation after the
slave was there. It could coexist with unfavorable legislation and
social opposition. Let natural processes rule.
What was the difference between this and girding the slave states around
with freedom? That could scarcely be done without the aid of natural
processes.
Pages:
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410