Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1819-09-11

tuents, and to conform to them in every
point, save only when they may be cal
led upon to act contrary to the dictates
of an enlightened conscience.
An agent, although he is required to
do whatever his employer wishes-yet
can never be compelled to act contrary
to law. But have our Representatives
been required to act contrary to the most
refined conscientious scruples Have
they not rather transgressed those laws
which bind society by moral ties | ask
them, earnestly intreat them to pause
and reflect on the consequences which
would result from such AN expansion Of
slavery. Surely theydo not believe the
flimsy sophistry which tries to draw
veil over the nefarious designs of avari-
cious Shareholders, by holding out the
opinion that spreading the slaves would
make their condition lighter slave
owners must know this to be false.
Can farmer who has an hundred
acres in cultivation, without range for
cattle, keep as much stock as he who
tills five hundred or thousand, and an
extensive range beside? Can planter,
by the same rule, who works but forty or
fifty acres of corn employ as many ne
groes as he who can put in several hun
bred. But we know that the human
race does increase more rapidly when
there is plenty OF room than when con-
fined. The evil would then be increased
numerically as well as geographically.
| know no reason why task master
should be more merciful west Of the
Mississippi than south of the Savannah.
Where, then, is the ground for believing
that the condition of slaves would be bet
ter in Missouri than Georgia | have
myself heard person ofno mean stand
ing in St. Louis threaten clergyman
with exemplary punishment who was en-
deavoring to teach his negro to read the
Bible Does this look like lettering
their situation? l say then that those
members of congress who opposed the
restriction, acted in contradiction to
their own conscientious opinions Of the
laws of humanity and moral right.
But the great objection to restricting
the people of Missouri is that according
to the doctrine of Shareholders it will
abridge the white inhabitants of their
civil rights. feel an attachment to the
people of that magnificent theatre of
great exploits, from spark of national
pride and enthusiasm which / feel glow
ing within me as we'll as from personal
regard to many of them. / would be
far from taking from them that which is
thcirs.--I wish to have secured to them
every civil right--consistent with the
moral and natural rights Of others. do
not believe, however, that the restriction
will infringe single privilege which
has been granted them by compact
while on the other hand it will secure to
"a numerous race of human beings those
rights which no power under Heaven
had ever the right to take away.
The article in the treaty of cession,
which contains the only color of ground
for claiming slavery in Missouri, is as
follows:
"The inha5it1nss OF the ceded territory shall
be Incorporated in the union of the United
States, and admitted as soon as possible, Gccor-
ding to the brincpies Of the federal constitution,
to the enjoyment of all the rights, advan.ages
and immnnisies of citizens ofMe United States !;
and in the mean time trey shall be maintained
and protected in the enjoyment of their IIBEn-
ry, property, and the religion which they pro-
fess."
| will not avail nysef Of the eniyer-
salty OF the word Inhabitants" as |
think Aristides has shewn the inevitable
consequence in that casc;* but will, to
try the question, admit that the makers
Of the treaty only meant the g free white
inhabitants and will even suppose, that
only Shareholders are there called inhabi-
tants. The inhabitants shall be ncorpo-
rated into the union of the u. States, &c.
They shall also 6 be protected in the
enjoyment Of their liberty, PROPERTY,
and the religion which they profess. -
The whole weight of the question lies on
the taisman;c word "hroherty"--for
their liberty (personal,) is untouched;
and as for their religion, no one pretends
that it is in danger.
Now. by species Of argument very
prevalent in the days OF barbalism---and
not entirely exploded yet, mean force
they have found themselves Possessed Of
a species of property in human flesh.
BY the treaty the property of the inhabi-
tants was secured. But does the treaty
say, or will it be argued thence, that the
property was to be perpetuated in the
possession of their heirs and assigns p