flooded with an inundation of traders with their long, thick gangs of wretched creatures, hurried to market to avoid total losses. There is no telling what would be the consequences, if, in the event of such law passed by Congress, the slaveholding States should fail to adopt similar laws. The wanton cruelties and revolting barbarities of the British West Indies would speedily be re-enacted in a region where quiet, and content, and jolly cheerfulness prevail among white and black. land would swarm with hordes of sullen and desperate creatures, torn suddenly from home and from family, and ready for any act of massacre, or for any kind of death. The whites, driven to fury by the fall of property, and by this repulsive innovation of their domestic arrangements, would soon grow discontented; the better and more polished portion would endeavor to leave the State; and anarchy more appalling than ever before exampled, would then become the order of the day. But would the Southern States fail, in such event, to pass such laws? We hazard little in saying that they would not. They value their homes, their property, and their domestic association far too highly, thus unwarily to jeopardize the peace and security of all. In Mississippi, especially, opinion is even now rife for the passage of such laws; and had the emancipation question, lately submitted to the people of Kentucky, prevailed, a foreign negro (by which we mean those of other States and portions of the confederacy) had never set foot on our soil. It is a settled and cherished hope and desire with many in this State, that the slave traffic shall speedily terminate within its limits. Already has it been declared, by resolution of the Legislature, a public nuisance for traders to expose their gangs of chained human creatures within view of the capitol of a sovereign State. The negroes now owned in Mississippi are, in general, thoroughly domesticated and happy as a race, attached to home and their masters, and they are the most cheerful and lighthearted of human beings. There is no State of the South where they are so comfortably provided for, so well treated, and so amply protected by law. It is thought, moreover, that the natural increase of those

here, will be more than sufficient to

To recur now to our original propositions, we must reiterate the opinion, that while the right to emancipate lies with the people in their collective body in convention,-a right they inherit from sources of power older than the Constitution or the laws, and consequently of unassailable and impregnable integrity as well as of superior magnitude,-slaves, like all other kinds of property, are subject, nevertheless, to legislation for regulation. It would be surely and strangely anomalous if they were not, especially in that feature which we have been more particularly employed in treating of.

Indeed, it may be further contended, that Congress has far more power, under the Constitution and deeds of cession, over the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, than the Legislatures have in the various States. The States are sovereign, independent powers. The District of Columbia, on the other hand, is not sovereign or independent. Its inhabitants are isolated as regards their relations with the different States or sovereign communities which form the United States. They have no voice either in the election of the President, or of the Congress which govern them. They are passive subjects.

The people of a sovereign State possess privileges, and claim immunities which the people of the District do not enjoy. The State Legislatures are not arbitrary, irresponsible bodies. As regards the ten miles square, Congress is entirely an arbitrary, irresponsible body. Here, then, is a wide

and vital difference, the grounds of which can neither be controverted or denied.

But, more than all, the District of Columbia is the neutral ground betwixt the jarring and conflicting sections of the confederacy. As applied within its limits, the nature of the government undergoes a change, and presents a new face. Sovereign power, unchecked and undefined, is lodged elsewhere than in the people. An assembly composed of representatives from all other portions of the country, is its sole owner and supreme arbiter. Taxation and representation are here emphatically disallied. One can be imposed without the recognition or voice of the other; and the great principle which gave birth to American independence, and which has built up one of the most powerful empires under the sun, is thus signally repudiated and disregarded in a neutral territory, set apart for the residence of the supreme powers.

But, independently of this paradoxical fact, and being the neutral ground between North and South, every reason is afforded why all grounds of exception or offence to the opinions and prejudices of both sections should be peacefully removed. Congress can never abolish slavery in the District without abruptly transcending its legitimate powers. This should be satisfaction enough to us of the South.

The indiscriminate traffic in slaves, exposing them for sale in droves, without regard to family or attachments, and under the very eye of men unaccustomed to such sights, is odious in the extreme. It is a custom not only foreign to the tastes and prejudices of the Northern men, but is revolting as the most disgusting nuisance. It is a repulsive and unwelcome sight to all. It is generally regarded as an unseemly and objectionable spectacle on the neutral ground of a free republic, one half of which in the capacity of sovereign States, has abolished and repudiated all connexion with the institution, excepting only in so far as they are constitutionally bound to protect the rights, in this respect, of the slaveholding States. It is a custom barely tolerated even in the States where slavery exists as a domestic institution. In many of these,-Mississippi prominent among them the introduction of slaves to vend in large droves is prohibited by statute, and made a penal offence. Why then

should we claim and contend for more in the District, which belongs to Congress, than is generally practised in our State Governments? Or why perversely deny a right to Congress so to regulate a traffic carried on within its "exclusive jurisdiction," as to make the same less objectionable and odious to one half of its body? It is a right belonging unquestionably to the "Congress and Government of the United States," and when they shall decide to act under that right, where will we find authority to prevent or successfully oppose them? We cannot call on the States, for they would be stopped at the outset, for want of formal and proper authority to interfere in a matter which both the Constitution and the law have removed beyond the reach of their control. No right of any sovereign State, no clause or portion of the great federal compact would be infringed by such action on the part of Congress, within a territory owing allegiance to it alone. The States, then, would be left without the shadow of complaint or aggrievance. We could not appeal to the General Government, for, besides being the offending party itself-if it be offence-it can only move in such case by the terms of the law, and that law will afford us no pretext for the call. The army and navy will not be at our disposal, for we could not make out a constitutional case of aggrievance, or frame a proper exhibit to claim them at the hands of the Executive. If we should attempt to bully or to threaten, Congress might silence us at once by producing the Constitution and deeds of cession, and by challenging us to show any cause for questioning the supremacy of the General Government within its proper sphere and within its "exclusive jurisdiction." They might also plead our favorite doctrine of " hands off," or the rapidly obtaining principle of "non-intervention." They would tell us to let them alone in their "absolute and exclusive jurisdiction," and then they in turn will forbear to interfere with ours. It will be time enough, we think, to resort to all these extreme remedies, and to others more extreme still, when Congress shall seek to disturb the institution in the States. Even then we are inclined to believe that remedies less harsh, less extreme, and less repulsive than force of arms, may be found to allay the tumult,

and afford redress. But in a case where we can establish no right, found no protest, and exhibit no authority to interfere; where, at the best, we would be so entirely excuseless and helpless, reason and mature reflection will tell us to pause and inquire before we take the final, fatal step. Otherwise we might chance to be placed in the perplexing situation of the American army before the broken gates of fallen Mexico,

or in the more ridiculous attitude of the French army before those of Rome. We might be found eager to inquire into the cause of the tumult after all the mischief had been done; or, what is worse still, we might be unable, when questioned by the opposing party, to state the grounds or the nature of our offence. J. B. C. Longwood, Miss., Jan. 1850.

To the Editor of the American Review: You are too old a politician and critic, Mr. Editor, not to have recognized how much of the that daily distracts our uproar ears is the expression of passions venting themselves on mistaken objects. Men set up their image, their Guy Fawkes or Old Noll, daub his features into a sufficiently close resemblance to some ideal horror of hideousness, and then with honest scatter the parted members of the scareerow-straw, rags, and paint-to the four winds of heaven. And you have seen the multitude, after such an exploit, return complacently to their homes, not doubting that a labor worthy of Hercules had been achieved

rage

But this human propensity cannot appear to you, as it appears to some, a subject for laughter. Experience and philosophy tell you that there is no other class of questions half so likely to give occasion for dangerous feud as those which arise from defective vision. In proportion that a quarrel is causeless, is it bitter. It follows that whoever does anything to remove a misapprehension, is engaged in the discharge of duty. Pardon me, then, if on this occasion I somewhat exceed the limits

of a familiar epistle. What I say, may have no novelty. To you, indeed, some of the facts I propose to mention may be so well known as scarcely to appear deserving of a formal statement; but, sir, remember that there are men less fortunate, whose position does not lift them beyond the reach of sectional prejudice. You will not

misunderstand me. I boast no remarkable extent of observation. What I have seen, who go it is possible for any others to see, near the object and view it with open eyes. Let me add-for I would scorn to make my testimony pass for more than it is worth-that I have looked upon slavery as a Southern man, yet I do believe (let who pleases cry "credat Judæus ") that I have looked upon it without partiality.

Gentlemen at the North are in the habit of expressing surprise at the state of Southern sentiment. The charitable allude to the fact with sorrow-those of a harsh and

polemic turn triumph thereupon.

But what if I deny that the South favors Slavery?

Immediately a torrent of questions is poured forth. Whence this opposition to the Proviso-to the abolishment of slavery at the seat of Government? Whence, in brief, this general sensitiveness which shrinks from the lightest touch, and vehemently repels any discussion trenching upon the obnoxious topic.

Let us first consider the fact-afterwards it will perhaps not be difficult to account for

the need of a search to ascertain it. Those who are worst informed must be aware that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution no part of the country exhibited a warmer dislike of all avoidable restraint upon human liberty than that part lying south of Mason and Dixon's line. Virginia, before the revolution, had struggled to the utmost of her ability against the importation of the African bondman; she had pro