Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1847-10-06

Rom the states OF Maryland, Virginia North and
South Caialina and Georgia, voted Tor tie onii.
nance, with the provision which not only proven
ted the introduction of slavery into but actually
a5oI'shtd Slavery then existing in, the Northwest
territory
The Supreme Court Of mississippi Harvey VS.
Decker Walkers Mi Reps 36J declared that the
ordnance OF s. cmancipateI the Slaves then held
there. In this decision the question is argued ably
and at great length.
The Supreme Court OF Louisiana made the same
decision in the case OF Forsyth vs. Nash i Martins
La Reps. 3o3. The same doctrine was laid down
by Judge Porter (a,e t. S Senator from Louisi.
ana IN the the decision at the March term of the
LouislanaSupreme Court $50, Murray vs.. Chexul-
der, 20 Martins Reps. G99.
That the Ordinance abolished slavery then exist
ing there, is also shown by the fact, that persons
holding slave in the Territory pettoned for repeal
OF the article abolishing slavery assigning that as
arsason. The petition of the citizens of Randolph
and st. Clair counties in the Illinois country sta
ting that they were in possession of slaves, and
praying the repeal of that act (he 9th Article of
the Ordinance of So and the passage of law lie.
CALLING slavery there Am. State papers, Public
lands, Vol l, p COZ
The ordinance was passed in July 1887, while
the Convention that framed the United States Con
stituton Was in session At the first sessioa. OF
the Congress under the constitution this ordinance
ratified by special act Judge Danc,of Mass
in honor and memory ofwhom the county in which
our Seat of Government is located is named, was
the author othe antslNvery clause of the ordinance
as adopted. Washington, fresh from the discus
sions OF the Convention in which more than forty
days ma been spent in adjusting the question of
slavery, gave it his approval The act passed with
only one dissenting voice Chat of Mr., Yates OF
New York; the South, equally With the North,
avowing the fitness and expedjency of the measure
on general considerations, and indicating thus early
the line of national policy to be pursued by the
United States Government
North Carolina and Georgia in their acts of ces-
sion, transferring TO the United States the territory
now constituting the States OF Tennessee, Alabama,
and Mississippi made it a condition OF tbs grant,
that the provisions of the ordinance of 81 should
be secured the inhabitants with the exception of
that part of the 9th Article which prohibits slavery.
These acts show the prevalent belief at the time
in the SlaNehold.ng States, that the General Gov
eminent had adopted a line of policy aiming at the
exclusion Of Slavery from the eRre territory of the
Uuicd States, not included within the original
States and that this policy would be pursued unless
prevented by specific and formal stipulation.
There is much evidence that might be adduced
to show what the expectations and intentions OF
the Fathers of this Republic were on the subject
of Slavery; viz that the States in which it then eX
listed should take the earliest measures for its abo-
iition and that from all territory of the t. States
where the jurisdiction of the General Government
exclusive, 1t should be rgdIy excluded.
We do not at present quote any of this evidence,
farther than what is afforded by the facts above Civ
en- in respect to the Ordinance Of ST. The follow
ing, if authentic, has some bearing upon the point
1t is an extract from book lately published III
Boston, entitled The Life and Opinions of julius
Mcburn" We quote from the Boston Chronotypc
The reader VIII attach as much consequence to it
as he chooses
1.-The part which has struck us as hay
ing the deepest historical interest is an ac-
count of a visit to the venerable sage of
Monticello in 1915, and particularly of a
dinner at Mr.. Jelierson's at which he was
a guest. There were present Chief Justice
Marshall, Mr.. Writ, Mr. Samuel DcX-
ter of Boston, DR.. Samuel l.. Mitchell
of New York, and Elder John Leland, a
Baptist Minister of Massachusetts The
first part of the conversation pertalned TO
the appointment of Judge Story TO the
Bench of the Supreme Court and law in
general. 1t passed from that TO the oppo-
stion of Massachusetts to the war, and the
Chief Justice expressed some apprehension
of the separation of the states, when it pro-
cceded i'll strain which we cannot forbear
TO copy
Mr.. Dexter said, ''he did not apprehend
any danger of separation of the states
from any difference of opinion as TO the or
binary measures ofgovcrnment. The peo-
pie of every state are strongly attached 10
the Union, and to prevent division, both
parties will always yield little Public
opinion will force leading politicians into a
compromise. But there is one evir' con-
tinued Mr.. Dexter, from which | apprc-
bend that dreadful result; / mean slavery in
the southern states and the slave reprcsen-
tation-"
"Oh," said Mr.. Jefferson, 'dismiss your
fears on that subject, siarery cW soon be
abolished IN all the sfate$.''
Never" said Judge Marshall, 'never by
the voluntary consent Of the sIaveholding
states"
Il regret replied Mr.. Jefferson, that
so attentive an observer as you are, Chief
Justice, should entertain such an opinion.
wM knoU that at the time .4mericGa IN
Dependence mas declared, no member, e.
Mer north or south, expected that slavery
wodd continue so long rs II has.
Although not exactly pertinent to the subject in
hand the reader may be gratiied to have the whole
Of this COW crsation narrated b. the author Of
the Book. We therefore give the remainder
Il can well believe that" said Mr.. Writ,
for they must have felt the continuance OF
slavery was directly adverse to their decla-
ration, that all men are born free and cqeal,
&C."
But" said DR.. Mitchell, II very much