Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1848-07-07
LETTER FROM MARTIN VAN buren, IN
REPLY TO THE NEW YORK DELEGATE

the prohibition by Congress. of slavery il
territories where it does not now exist. an,
they shall be given in a few words, and il
a manner which viii not, hope increase
lftdoes not diminish the existing excite
ment in the public mind.
The illustrions founders OF our govern
ment were not insensible to the apparen
inconsistency between the perpetuatio6 o
slavery IN the United States, and the Trip
ciples of the Revolution, as delineated III III,
Declaration of Independence and the,
were too ingenious in their dispositions tC
attempt to conceal the impressions by which
they were embarrassed. But they knew
also that It's speedy abolition in several q
the States, was Impossible. and its exist
ence in all, without fault on the part of the
present generation. They were too IN
right and the iraternal feelings which haC
carried them through the struggle for indie
pendence were also too strono 10 nerni
them to deal with such a matter upon any
other principles than those ofhberaiity and
justice. The policy they adopted, was to
guarantee to the states in which slavery
existed, an exclusive control of the subiec
within their respective Jurisdictions. but to
prevent by united efforts, its extension 10
territories the United States. in which il
did not intact exist.
On all sides the most expedieut means 70
carry out this policy were adopted with
aIacrity and good feeling. Their first step
was to interdict Decentralization Of slavery
into the Northwest territory, now covered
by the States OF Ohio, Indiana, Illinois
Michigan and Wisconsin. This may lust
ly be regarded as being, in the main, a
southern measure. This subject was first
brought forward in Congress by Mr.. JEFF
ierson. Virginia made the cesson of ter
rItory upon which the ordinance was in
tended TO operate, and the representatives
from all the slaveholding states gave it a
unanimous support. Doubts have arisen
III the minds OF some whether the ordinance
OF lIe7 was authorized by the articles OF
confederation. A bill was authorized bv
the articles of confederation. A bill was
introduced in the new Congress at its first
session under the constitution, recognizing
and adapting it to the new organization, and
1t has ever since been treated and regalds |
as valid act. This bill received the co l.
stitutionaI APPROPRIATION orPresident Wash
mgton, whose highest and sworn duty it
was to support the constitution under which
1t was enacted. Nor was the north back
ward IN doing its part to sustain the policy
which had been wisely adopted. They
assenled TO the insertion of provisions in
the constitution necessary and sufficient TO
IN, thO II,
did more.
The trouble unprecedented at the COM
mencement of the government from this
source, began to show itself as early as the
year 1870, in the form of petitions present
ed to Congress upon the subject Of slavery
and the slave trade by the Quakers of Phil
adelphia and New York, and by DIR. Frank
lin as president of a society for the promo
ton of abolition. These petitions were in
the House of Representatives referred TO
committee OF sever, all but one of whom
were northern members, whose report as
amended i'll committee of the whole affirm
ed that Congress have no power to inter-
tere IN the emancipation of slaves, or in the
treatment of them within any of the States,
it remaining with the several states alone
TO provide any regulation therein which hu-
mainly and true policy might require"
The perseverance and good faith with
which both branches of policy thus adopt
ed have until very recently, been recognlz-
ed and carried out, are highly honorable TO
the whole country. The peculiar liability
of the subject to be converted into an eIe-
ment OF political agitation, as well in the
slaveholdlng as in the non slaveholding may
have led to occasional attempts so to en-
ploy it; but these efforts have been very
successfully frustrated by the good sense
and good feeling of the people in every
quarter of the Union. A detailed account
of the numerous acts Of the Federal Gov
ernment, sustaining and carrying into full
effect the policy OF its founders upon the
subject Of slavery in the states, and It's ex-
tension to the territories, and the steps taxi
en- in the non-saveholding states, to sup
press or neutrallze undue agitation in re-
gard to it, would be alike instructive and
honorable to the actors in them.
But it will be readily perceived that this
could not given within the necessary Inn
It's OF communication like the present.
1t must therefore suffice to say, that, from
1897, the date of the ordinance for the pre-
venton of slavery IN the North western ter
rtory, down to and including 1913, at least
eleven acts of Congress have been passed,
organizing territories which have since be-
come states, in all of which the constitution
al power OF Congress to interdict the intro
ducton of slavery into the territories Of the
United States, is either directly exercised
or clearly asserted by enactments, which,
as matters of authority, are tantamount to its
exercise ; and that at the only period when
the peace the slaveholding states was sup
posed to be seriously endangered by aboll-
ton agitation, there was a spontaneous up
rising Of the people of the north of both
parties, by which agitation was paraIyzed
and the south re assured of our fidelity to the
compromises of the Constitution.
In the laws for the organization of the
territories which now constitute the states
of Ohio. Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wis
consin, and Iowa, slavery was expressly
prohibited. The laws for the organization
of the territories of Mississippi, Orleans,
Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida, contained
enactnents fully equivalent in regard to the
extent of power in Congress over the sub
iect Of slavery i'm the territories 10 the ex