Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1847-10-07
Antt- Glouerp.
From the National Era.
The Five Acts Of the General Gov
GrnmGMt.

Crnmont,
1t may be well to present the various acts of
the Confederation and Union on the question of
the extension of slavery.
H-PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA.
In 1903, Louisiana was purchased A great
oversight was committed here, in annexing no
Ant-Slavery proviso to the terms of purchase
One reason Of this might have been the haste
with which the transaction was effected, and the
total appropriateness, both of the government
and the people, for such a measure As we have
stated, more than once, it was not in the con-
temptation Of Mr.. Jefferson to obtain any terrific
Try west of the Mississippi; his great object being
the acquisition Of the free navigation of the river
and of the port Of New Orleans. The vlole ter
ritory of louisiana was forced upon him, and the
purchase was made by the United States Com
missioners withOut authority, they acting under
what really appeared to be an absolute necessi-
ty This together with the fact that the govern
ment was 10th to interfere with the usages of the
alien people lnhabtlng the territory, explains
why there was no movement made for the prohi-
btion Of slavery in the new purchase. But Con-
gress, though emitting the performance of its
duty IN this respect, still showed in its act erect
ing Louisiana into two territories, (approved
March 26, 1904 the anti-slavery policy of the
government Section tenth Of this act forbids--
first the Importation Of slaves into the territory,
from any port or place without the limits of the
United States although, by the compromise of
the constitution, all the original states were at
liberty to carry on such importation till the year
l5O8; secondly, the importation, from ANY port
or place Othin the United States, of slaves who
had been imported into the country subsequent
y to the first day of May, 1898, or should there
after be imported; thirdly, as follows: No slave
or slaves SHALL directly or indirectly, be introdu-
ced into said territory, except by citizen ofthe
United States, removing into said territory for
actual settlement, and being at the time of such
removal bona fde owner of such slave or slaves;
and every slave imported or brought into the said
territory contrary to the provisions of this act
shall thcreupon be entitled to and receive his or
her freedom
The whole section, especially the part just
quoted, plainly shows that it was the policy of
the government to discourage slavery in all new
territory; although it certainly swerved from the
straight line marked out by Jefferson and by
the ordinance of 1887, in not taking effective
measures for its complete exclusion.
IH.-MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
The result of this departure from principle
was fearfulIy demonstrated in the struggle which
took place on the application of Missouri for ad-
mission as a state, in 1920. The friends of the
original policy of the government then rallied,
and endeavored to regain what had been lost
The struggle here was not to keep out slavery
from territoryin which it was already prohibited,
Orn 10 nyclu1o IL fran in Ul,inh
had effected an entrance, but to make its aboli-
ton condition of the admission of Missouri, as
a state, where it was long-standing domestic
institution, and was lnbedded in the preud ,es
usages and interests of the people. The battle
of Freedom was necessarily fought under the
most Instantaneous circumstances, its friends
having to contend against arguments drawn botl
from vested rights and state rights; and yet, moi
until after the most stubborn resistance, not un
til some of their number bad been Ca oed by the
most adroit COMPROMISED of the age, was the day
carried against them, by bare majority in the
/, House of Representatives of three votes!
Some features of that struggle belong also to
the present contest concerning the Wilmot pro-
vso. The political managers in Congress have
f connected the two qnestions-the organization
of a territorial government for Oregon, with the
i; proposition to exclude slavery from new terrific
ny; so that, fthe friends of Freedom insist upon
the one, its adversaries may defeat the other
Mr.. Calhoun, through his agents in the House
attempted to procure the resembling of the anti
slavery provision in the act for establishing ter
ritorial government in Oregon, and falling Ill
that, when the act reached the Senate, succeed
| ed in having it striker out there, and then, by
the aid of wing votes from the Northeastern
states, in postponing it till another Congress
thus keeping it an open question, to be used N
extorting concessions from the supporters of the
f Wilmot provso.
A similar game was played in 1929. The
Senate then, as now was on the side of slavery
, and, by a cunning manelvre, connected the or
ganization Off government for Maine with the
question of the admission of Missouri, SO that
Maine was not recognised till the shareholders
, claim for Missouri was fully secured.
} The Missouri struggle terminated, as all know
, in the famous compromise by which slavery was
prohibited in all that part Of Louisiana territory
lying north of Sc deg. 30 min, except so muct
; as was included in the state of Missouri 1t il
in the following words.
That in all TINT territory coded by France t.
t the United States, under the name Of Louisiana
s which lies north OF 30 deg.30 mn north latitude
not included within the limits of the state con
t tempIeted by this act, slavery and involuntary
!, servitude, otherwise than in the punishment
: crimes, whereof the parties shall have been dGly
It convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever PROM
S bited: Provided al,oays, That any person escaap
ing into the same, from whom labor or servic
h is lawfully claimed in any state or territory o
d the United States such fugitive may be lawfully
: reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming
r his or her services, aforesaid
81 The act, in which this is embodied as PROV
h so, authorized Missouri to organize as State
e and form State Convention, and was approve
= March 6, 1920,