The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-06-30
THE UNION


was clause prohibiting slavery within it, But we ask
ed: Suppose such prohibition urked in it, covert Ian
guage, would Mr. Van Buren, with his vivid recollection
OF the history OF that period, before the country and
say that either the Congress which passed it, he who
approved H. did so with full knowledge that ii contained
such provision. and that they meant that occasion,
to assert deliberately and considerably the power of Con-
gress TO prohibit slavery in the Territories
MIR. Van Buren, must answer these questions in the
affirmative; otherwise, the has not the force as
precedent, which he claims for IT, But propose TO
show that Congress did not understand it; and we
express the belief, if Mr. Van Buren, did, he concealed
the fact when good faith required that he should have
disclosed it, if it should have been fatal to his po
hical prospects to have done And we mean to show
further, that any such purpose Mr. Van Burens part
is inconsistent with his declared opinion al the time and
prior to these transactions. The House of Representa-
uves, which passed the Iowa bill, also adopted the
Anterior resolutions. The circumstances under which
they passed, in 1888, briefly these The
agitation of the subject OF slavery in the savehod
ing States, and by portion of their representatives in
Congress- had about that time become very fierce;
much that the south had become very much rritaed
and the friends of the Union becoming alarmed for
its safety The fayore mode of this agitation by
petitions TO Congress for the abolition of slavery the
District of Columbia and the Territories and for the abo
ltion of the internal slave-trade as it called To
quiet the public mind, and to put end far posi-
Bile to this dangerous agitation it thought expedient
by the democratic party at that time, to make solemn
declaration of their views of the subject and Mr. Ath-
erton of New Hampshire, warm friend of Mr.. Van
Buren, the then President, selected to offer the
utons containing them. Those resolutions in the fol-
| lowing words:
L. RESOLVED, That this government is government of
limited powers and that by the constitution of the United
States Congress has no jurisdiction whatever the sub
ect slavery the several STATES OF this Conederacy
Resoipd That petitions for the abolition of slavery in the
District OF Columbia and Territories Of ne United States
and against the removal of slaves from State another
are part OF plan OF operations set on foot 10 affect the in
stiuon OF slavery the several States and thus indirectly
destroy that institution within their limits. ID
Rsotped That Congress has right to do that indi-
recuy, which it cannot do directly and that the agitation
Of the subject of slavery in the District of Coumba the
Territories, means and with the view OF disturbing
spirit and meaning of the constitution, infringe
ment OF the rights of the States affected and breach OF
ration
A. RESOLVED, That the constitution the broad
racy that Congress the ofts acknowledged
powers, has right discriminate between the insttu
tons OF portion of the States and another with view
OF abo shng the one and promoting the other
Rsolgsa tso That all attempts on the par, OF
The Territories prohibit the removal of slaves from
portion the conederucy and another, with the
aforesaid are in violation of the constitution destructive
nd
that every petition, memorial, resolution proposition,
whatever, slavery aforesaid abolition thereof
snail on the presentation thereof without any further
ton thereon, be laid upon the table, without being de-
ba ted, printed or referred.
These resolutions received the appreciation of the Van
Buren party at that time in both houses of Congress,
(amo 1g whom of Mr. Van Burens most trusted
friends, including the lamented Sias Wrght0 and it is
very confidently believed of Mr.. Van Buren, himself
who, such occasions, is known, always freely
consulted by his party and greatly deferred to by them
Here it will be ta all attempts the part of Con-
gress to abolish slavery the District of Columbia or
the Territories, to discriminate be,ceen the institutions
Of ortion of the confederacy and another" de-
nounced in the strongest guage sin violation of the
constitution destructive of the fundamental principles
on which the Union of these States rests" Can it be be-
lieved that the same House of Representatives which
passed these resolutions did the very thng-and that,
too, without dissent-the attempt to do which even
they thus severely denounce' Can any believe that
MI Van Buren, who approved these resolutions, meant
to fly in the face of them, in his approval of the Iowa
bill2 We are not uncharitable enough to believe it. 1t
is an afterthough in Mr. Van Buren,, that the Iowa bill
asserted the power of Congress prohibit slavery in the
Territories and not sustained by the provisions Of
the bill itself Into what desperate struggles must he
not be driven when he involves himself in such incon
sstences as these
But perhaps it will be said that the denunciaon OF all
attempts to abolish slavery in the Territories is only
evelled at such attempts when they made ''wh the
view of destroying overhrowng that institution in the
States" Ii it is answer, "the attempt to discriminate
between the institutions Of portion of the States and
|
another is equally denounced Besides, we point to the
second resolution which asserts (what we believe few
will deny) that all such attempts made with these
views The truth of the second resolution is more
ndisputable now than it was in 1888. At that time we
had two Territories in which slavery existed and if Con-
qress has the power the institution OF slavery in the
Territories as Mr. Van Buren, now contends, there was
subject upon which could operate to abolish it; and
in the Territories in which it did not exist, Iowa among
them there was place from which to exclude it. Under
such circumstances it would have been very difficult to
declare that the purposes of the petitioners for the
bb;,ion of slavery in the Territories Indirect or
contemplated remote object, when, in Mr. Van Burens
view there was direct and papable within their
| reach.
But at this time we have Territories in which slavery
in fact exists and indeed, the agitation OF the Wilmot
Proyso was commenced in reference to territory which
at the time we did not even possess How striking them is
the application of every of Athertons resolutions