Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for Lynchburg Virginian
Domestic News January 25, 1836

Lynchburg Virginian

Lynchburg, Virginia

What is this article about?

A letter from James Garland clarifies his congressional speech on abolition, stating he opposes congressional power over slavery in D.C. and urges the South to demand Northern renunciation of such rights, correcting prior misunderstandings.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

We are gratified to perceive, by a letter from James Garland, Esq. to the Editors of the Charlottesville Advocate, that we, as well as those Editors, misunderstood a portion of that gentleman's speech in Congress, on the Abolition question. He did not intend to say, as we supposed, that the South would not object to the recognition of the constitutional power of Congress to legislate on the subject of Slavery in the District of Columbia, provided the Northern members would agree that it is inexpedient to exercise it. On the contrary, he contends that Congress has no right to touch the question, and that the South should require of the North an explicit renunciation of such right. We repeat our gratification that, on this subject, Maj. Garland has shaken off the trammels of party.

What sub-type of article is it?

Politics Slave Related

What keywords are associated?

James Garland Congress Speech Abolition Question Slavery Legislation Constitutional Rights

What entities or persons were involved?

James Garland, Esq. Editors Of The Charlottesville Advocate

Domestic News Details

Key Persons

James Garland, Esq. Editors Of The Charlottesville Advocate

Outcome

misunderstanding of speech corrected; garland asserts congress has no right to legislate on slavery in d.c. and calls for explicit renunciation by the north.

Event Details

James Garland's letter to the Charlottesville Advocate editors clarifies that in his congressional speech on abolition, he did not concede congressional power over slavery in D.C. but instead contends Congress has no such right and the South should demand Northern renunciation.

Are you sure?