Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1823-07-12

proving slavery in the abstract, should
they, under such circumstances, agree
to its introduction among them. They
would settle the question upon principle,
be tina, decision what it might. Does the
proposition to introduce it into Illinois
stand upon different ground Illinois
IS, as to this question, free and indie
pendent state. She has the same power
to keep it at distance from her, that
the United States would have, if it had
never existed in them, to prohibit its i'm
portation from abroad. The domestic
affairs of each state, are left to their own
management. Slavery is of that class,
and after a state is admitted into the
Union, without any condition or COM
pact on the subject, such state has the
power TO dispose oft, as may be thought
just and right. Free from all obliga-
tions then, as Illinois is, to receive slave
ry, either to meliorate" the condition
of the slave, or 10 relieve other states
from share Of the evil of holding them,
the question for her first to settle, would
appear to -"Is slaveryJuss and right
in the abstract :" Or, in other words
Is she willing to create slavery ?"
The state of Illinois is free. Her po-
ltical temple is inaccessible to the slave
driver. The supreme law of the land
has interdicted its existence. The pro-
position, then, to admit slavery, is, as
far as it relates to Illinois, proposition
to create slavery-to create a cahacify in
the people to engage in practice that
violates all principle, both moral and
political, which, without an exer,ion of
the sovereign power of the people, they
never would possess. If that capacity
be exercised, the effect, though not d.
reclly, certainly is indirectly created by
the people. Slavery would be that ef-
feet, and we should, therefore, create
slavery. Suppose the people should in
convention say, that each individual in
the community who could so exercise his
physical power over his ncighbor, as TO
hold him in duresse, or in slavery, should
have the legal right Of doing so. Al
though in this case, the law would not
directly say what particular persons
should be slaves, yet, by cndowing one
class of citizens with the legal capacity
of holding another in bondage, it would
be the law that created slavery. And
whether the law endow the individual
with capacity thus to hold another, or
merely enable him to 60 to distant
land and select the objects of his OPP
preston, is wholly immaterial. The
principle that justiies the one, would
equally sanction the other. For in a
land that is free, the moment that a TO-
reign slave is brough, there to be domi-
ciled, that instant he is free, and the
moment the law is changed, SO as to
make him slave, you create slavery.
That slavery exists III other states, does
not afford the slightest apology for US to
establish it here. The offences of our
neighbors can no more be urged as an
excuse for those committed by ourselves,
than we can legally be made to suffer
for The wrongs Of others. The propo-
sition, therefore, to introduce slavery in
to this state, involves all the arguments
that could be fairly adduced both for
and against it, if slave had never exist
cd any where. If we are right in this,
we think we can safely appeal to every
christian, and to every patriot in the
state, 10 use his efforts to prevent its es-
Enlistment here. Let US not deceive
ourselves. 1t is not merely question
of" policy" but question ofprinciple,
and before slavery can be legally intro
duced here, the people must solcmnly
settle the question, that it is right and
PROPER for one human being to hold
another in bondage; that the strong