The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-08-26
CITY OF WASHINGTON.
The wiImot Proviso Question.

The Wilmot PrOvis0 Question.
few days since we published an article reiteratng
be position which we have always maintained that the
Dolitcal condition of the new territory which we may
oquire from Mexico ought to be fixed in that spirit q
aprome between the north and the south in which the
constitution framed, and in which Legislation, ID
pursuance of the constitution, has heretofore been had IN
Two memorable instances of the acquisition OF new terri
ory We put this old proposition upon the OLD and las II
seems to us the mpegnabe ground that since there is
fundamental difference between the social organization
o the south and of the NORTH which difference both
recognised and protected by the federal constitution, so
neither of these societies ought TO claim wholly to ex
cude the other by federal legislation, from all partcpa
lion in a common acquisition, gained by common sacri-
fees and burdens To this view of ours the New York
Evening Post with great courtesy of manner, but with
unusual soemnty and emphasis OF tone, replies as fol-
lows:
SAT length the thousands and millions of democratic citi
zens the free and the States have presented 10 them
the painful spectacle of print established at the seat oil
government and claiming the high and honorable position
Of being the organ of communication between the govern
men and the public, far forgetn of its duty maintain
only great and glorious interests in Which the very
ience OF liberty is saked, advocate the Uecs of
rar section, and those OF wrong and oppression
We ay the Of section and might hare added quite
snail section of the nation The espoused by the
Washington Union is hostile the interests of every free
man the northern Sesit is hostile to the views Of the
citizens of Delaware and probably OF Western Virginia, OF
Kentucky Missouri, portion of Tennessee and North Caro-
lima and the unbiased sentiments of thousands of
in slavehodng States, who have interest in that pc
cuiar kind of property"
We deny that the proposition which we maintain can
with any degree of fairness be sgmatized &C sec
toaaL" Our proposition is, that federal legislation
ought not to prevent the diverse interests, institutions
and population of the two sections OF country ON
aaring the new territory between them The Posts
opposition is, that Congress ought to to it that
there be such sharing of the territory between the
people and the institutions of the north and OF the SOUTH
but that the social organization of the north ought by its
votes in Congress- to exclude that of the south from the
new territory altogether. Now, on this mere statement
Of the question, in advance of one word of argument
we put it to the candor of the Post to answer us
which one of these two propositions is the more sec
tonal7
But again. if our proposition be SECTIONAL what is the
national proposition this subject Is it national
proposition with us, that while society, it is organized
one half Of the States of the Union, may 60 on extend
ng itself into lands at pleasure, society," it is
ganzed in the other half of the States must be rigorous
restrained within its present limits by the action OF
Congress- Is nation federal government CON-
Matted to that proposition Has the federal government
the rgiym poacsr to commit itself to any such PROPOSE
ton' Can it be pretended that the federal constitution
framed adopted for the purpose with the view
Of preventing slavery in errory3 On the contrary,
that instrument leaves to the people of every State in the
Union the political competency to decide for themselves
whether they will establish slavery within their own
State limits or not This is done by the constitution for
whoie nation Is it, them very sectional in 10
ask that Congress shall not altogether exclude from the
whole of the territory this political competen
cy of the people in the premises
But the Post proceeds:
1t painful to witness this advocacy of local in
sutton in which not than million of the citizens
hs republic have any pecuniay interest," at the expense
the welfare and prosperity of nineteen millions who have
such interest but vastly painful is it to witness
print which holds the leadership OF party, the most glo-
distinction of which is, that it defends the rights of
man, and pledges their development and security its
very existence advocates the extension of human oppres
sion and the sacrifice of human rights
The Post will observe that not I" advocating ;"
slavery We have not advanced one single argument in
favor of establishing slavery in California. What
do advocate is that Congress shall not under
take beforehand wholly to exclude from all parts OF that
territory the right Of the future jewellers there decide
That question Tor themselves.
But in the next place, the Post clear upon the point
that the cause of human rights, will be promoted Or
advanced by federal legislation which shall confne the
stakeholder and his slave to this side of the Rio Grande
Is the Post clear that such legislation will be for the
good OF the black race Is that journal clear that such
legislation will be for the good of the white laborers
either of the North of the South Is it clear that such
gisation--to say nothing Of its justice and farness-w
be wise safe legislation for the southern portion of
Unon Surely there two sides to each of these ques
ions Is the Post them clear that Congress, the antcpa
lion OF contingencies and circumstances only dmly
toreseen ought take the decision of these questions
out Of the hands of those who at future day. will be
best informed about them by actual experience, and who
will be most deeply interested to decide them rghtly'
But from all such inquiries, return TO the question:
what is just and TAR in this NATTER between the
northern and southern sections OF this Unon' That is
The first practical question ia the case We deny the
justice and fairness of making, by act OF Congress- the
new territory all northern in its social system The
federal government cannot do this beforehand, without
nmpng upon the equal rights of the southern portion of
lhls confederacy
We could scarcely expect the cooperation Of the New
York Post in carrying out the principle of the Missouri
compromise after the stand which its editor took in rela
ION to Texas But for ourselves, free to say that
We take the same ground now that we took in 1884,
We still hold that the constitution founded on
preside in the administration of the government as in its