Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-01-05
From the .Ns,0 York Obssrver.l
THE PR0yISOES AND THE UNION

The application Of the Southern Proviso 10
port on OF the Mexican territory would not
only be equitable in itself, bu, i would also De
in accordance with the principles of the Wis
souri, Compromise. 1t may ne said that The
South is not entitled 10 the benefit of that COM
promise in the case Of the territory in question,
because il has been acquired since the compro-
mise was made. Surprising this To be granted,
il might still be asked why should not the con
trovcrsy, which now agit4ies the country, be
composed in the same manner with tie similar
one which ragged in 1890? If the greater par;
of the newly acquired territory is South OF SO
degrees 30 minutes the principle OF the com
promise may be carried out by removing the
| line farther South, so IS 10 make all equitable
| division. But /, is said 'that the war with
Mexico had new territory for its primary oh
| iect, with the extension OF the slave power as
| The ultimate end; and the Wilmot Proviso
| introduced 10 put veto upon such result III
| would be Inferred from this statement, that The
| wal was altogether a Southern measure; and
| that, therefore, The North Nigh, with pro rlety
| use Strong means 10 counterfeit IFS pro slavery
efforts. We have already seen that The result
| of the war is not Ii ey, IN any event, to be any
great increase Of the save power But suppose
| such 10 be lis d sign, who is responsible for III
Is the South alonei II is well known that
powerful party at the North has been al! along
opposed 10 this pretended Southern measure
| Ii the North had been as unanimous against wa
and conquest, as it is against the lighter evils ..
slavery, those measures I'D have been de.
featcd by an overwhelming majority. But so
| far from being unanm uS against them, the
North exhibited the spectacle Of about onc-hali
of lis citizens, directly aiding by their conduct
10 bring on the war. Those citizens, By favor
| ing The war, induced some Of the Southern
people 10 think that they were the special
friends Of the South, and encouraged them 10
expect that Southern rights would be carefully
protected in the management Of the new terri
tory. Good faith would seem 10 require that
they should not disaPpoint such expectations.
But faith is not to be kept with man s,ealers by
abolition fanatics, any more than with here.
| tics by some other fanatics. Some Of those
who were forward in promoting or defending
the war, are now among the foremost in uig-
ing measures which, il adopted, must have the
effect Of d.tarring the South Of its rights in
regard to the acquired territory, and adding TO
the Northern side Of the exciting question the
whole Of The region which Southern men were
encouraged TO expect would promote their own
interest. II might be too ,uuch to say, that any
manner did so with the deliberate design Of du-
ping the South, and then taking advantage Of
lis misplaced confidence, to build up power
for the purpose Of crushing this section of the
country; but it may safely be said, that if any
have acted with such design, such pcrhdy is
in perfect keeping with other parts of the sys
tenn Of abolition tactics
We have seen that the conduct of those
Southern men who insist that slavery shall be
tolerated in portion of the Mexican territory
so far from being an intolerable encroachmen
upon the North, is perfectly in accordance
with the principles of equity. 1t will be trul,
wonderful, if conduct which is 50 reasonab l'
shall lead calculating men at he North Il
figure out the value of the Unou," aud 10 con
clude "that il costs more than it comes To-" !
will be Inc more wonderful, from the fact tha
the SUBJECT OF complaint is in itself matter o
very small consequence to the North or TO TIL
colored race. Why shoul il be thought 81
great an abuse for Congress 10 "ordain that TIL
people OF territory may no! preserve the
soil from the foot print Of a slave2" Thi
would be only the counterpart of the Wlmo
Provso. II Congress may take the subjec
into lis own hands, and decide in one way TO
one terri ory it has equal authority to decide IL
the opposite way for another. There IS NJ
more infringement upon the rights OF The people
in the one case than in the other. And as 10
the morality of permitting slavery a! all, tina
question has been decided in the case CT th
District OF Columbia after q prolracted aglta
ton. The General Government has in that ca
decided TO permit an institution, which IS per