The Daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1845-1850, 1848-08-26

the brief period which has elapsed-we may well
say brief, when viewed in connection with such
great results-we have witnessed the addition OF
nine slaveholding, and only thee non slavehod-
ing States to the Contederacy, beyond those
which were provided for before the adoption of
the Constitution, making them to stand fifteen to
fifteen. The preponderance originally secured
to the non-slBv eholding States, and with the
knowledge OF which they assisted in investing
the institution of slavery in the States, with
the privileges and guarantees of the Consttu-
ton, has thus been annihilated These facts can
not be controverted or concened, and when once
fully understood and appreciated by the people
Of the non-slaveholding States, they must have
controlling influence over their future course.
The emotions they have already excited, ought
not to surprise intelligent and ingenious minds in
any quarter.
But this is not the only, nor even the most re-
pulsive view which we are compelled to take of
the present pretensions of our brethren of the
slaveholding States Slavery is now presented
in livery which it never wore before. On ev-
cry previous occasion, when there has been
conflict OF opinion in regard to it, the question
has only been, how far the policy of 1887 should
be carried out, by prohibiting restricting the
extension of Slavery in territory which was, at
the time, subject to its introduction. Most of the
territory of the United States which was thus
situated, save the State of Iowa, which was ex-
cepted by the Missouri Compromise, has been
converted into slave States, and admitted into the
Union as such. Now, for the first time, the
attempt is made. to permit the introduction OF
Slavery into territories which now free from
it-terriores from which it was expelled within
the last fifteen or twenty years, by the express
and solemn act of their former government and
people, with whom-a government and people
in respectto the attributes of freedom ours could
not brook comparison
Al
annexing to our Union Texas, an extensive slave
State, covering area capable of being formed
into many more such States, we became involved
in war with Mexico, which claimed continued
dominion over that State. The territories in re-
gard to which the question is now made, are
among the conquests OF this war. tits, therefore,
in effect, whatever may have been the original
objects of the war, appeal to the inhabitants OF
the non-saveholdng States, to sanction the extern
sion through our instrumentaty, of Slavery into
territories, which the U S. have, in fact, acquired
by the sword, but which others have relieved
from that great evil. Such proposition needs
only to be stated, to insure its prompt rejection
by the non slavehodng States.
Upon what grounds is it attempted to sustain a
principles repugnantto our feelings, so destruc-
tive in our view, to national character and so
well calculated, if successful. to cloud the glory
of this great Republic? That there should be
diversities of opinion and feeling upon the sub
iect of Slavery, between US and our Southern
brethren, is certainly natural. The strength of
Northern aversion to the institution, has been
recently very truly stated on the floor OF the
Senate, by very distinguished Southern states
man. The people of the North could not over
come this aversion, if they would and they
cannot desire to do SO, because they religiously
believe that the his hest earthly interests of man
are based on its permanancy aud ultimate uni
A Al. -
different, because the culture of their minds and
dispositions and the force OF habit have had an
opposite tendency. This known, and, for
season at least, ncurabe diversity of opinion and
feeling should beget spirit OF Cancellation, and
inculcate mutual forbearanee in speech and
action. This duty has doubtless been occasional
ly lost sight of, on both sides; but it cannot be
denied that the departuretrom it has been great
est on the part OF our Southern brethren.
No one will venture to insist that it is, at this
day, either expedient or right to originate Sla-
very in territories that are free from it, if it can
be properly prevented. But it is insisted that
this cannot be done in the under considera-
alton, and IN the form proposed. First, because
the Constitution does not give Congress the power
to prohibit Slavery in the territories and that,
consequently, the great number of acts for that
purpose which have been passed for the last sixty
years, with general assent, were but so many
. miraculous oil Inc CONSTITUTION.
All will remember the solemnity and rapdty
with which State after State, at the South, in sue
cession, announced this doctrine, and the acri-
monious vehemence with which their conven-
tons denounced political prescription, in the form
OF exclusion from the Offices OF President and
Vice President, of all who refused to adopt it.
But it is already apparent, that differences of
opinion upon this important subject cannot be
settled by vehement assumptions, nor concila.
ton in regard to it promoted by denunciation.
10 our country, such difficulties must be solved
by appeals to the tests provided by the Constitu-
ton. For the rectitude OF our motives, and the
correctness OF our conduct we are responsible,
on earth, 10 the opinions OF the civilized world.
and hereafter to Power that is greater and wis.
than all.
The question OF constitutionality, the gravest
Of all questions that can be made against pub.
lie measure, has just passed through the ordeal of
public discussion, and the doctrine in question has
been thoroughly rejected and condemned by
the voice of the nation, that it is no longer
sary to spend words in refuting it.
Two circumstances have, however, occurred,
which though not necessary to its overthrow,
give to that overthrow sanction which entities
them TO no ice. 1t now appears, that twenty
eight years since, at the time of the Missouri
Compromise, Mr.. Munroe, then President, a
STAKEHOLDER, and elected from a slaveholding