Democratic banner., 1849-07-16

government under which that ordinance
was passed, was found wholly insufficient
for the III reservation of American liberty,
and it was consequently shortly afterwards
abolished, and our present government es-
tablished in its place. 1t therefore affords
not the slightest evidence of the power of
Congress under our present constitution,
over the subject of slavery. Reference
might be made with the same propriety~to
the power claimed by the British ParIia-
ment. For the people of this coutry have
throw n off, not only the power of England,
but also, that OF the cOntederdtion,-both
are passed away and we now live under a
government entirely different from either,
both in power and character. and besides,
the object and design of the prohibition Of
slavery in the ordinance of 1887, were en-
tirely different from the object and design
of the Wilmot Proviso. This fact has been
heretofore too frequently overlooked. AT
that time, under the confederation, Con-
gress had no power to prohibit the african
iSIare trade, and some of the Northern
States were then importing them from a.
broad. Virginia and Maryland and some
others had then prohibited the slave trade,
but other States were exercising that right,
and were carrying on that unfortunate
traffic. Congress had then no power to
prohibit the trade by positive law, and
therefore their only means of discouraging
the importation, was to-.lessen the market
within which they might be bought and
sold. And hence the restriction of slavery
in the north-wes territory. In support Of
this view of the subjectI vii read you an
extract from a letter of James Madison to
James Monroe, dated Feb. 10, 1920:
"Ihave observed as yet, in none Of the
Views taken of the ordinance of 1887, inter
dieting slavery northwest of the Ohio, an
~allusion to the Gil mi that when it
passed, the Congress had no authority TO
prohibit the importation Of slaves from a.
broad; that all the States had, and some
were IN the full exercise of, the right to i'm
Port them and consequently, that there
was no mode in which Congresscould check
the evil, but the indirect one of narrowing
The space open far the reception IF SLAVES.
!, "Had a federal authority then existed to
prohibit directly and totally, the importa-
ton from abroad, can it be doubted, that it
would have been exerted? And that a
regulation having merely the effect of PRE-
VENTING THE %INTERIo DISPOSITION OF slaves
actually in the United States, and CREATING
A DISTINCTION AMONG THE STATES, IN THE
DEGREES Of THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, would moi
have been adopted or perhaps thoughtof? 2
t This letter fully explains the motive
which induced the prohibition Of slavery
contained in the ordinance Of 1887 and
that object does not now apply, and car
never hereafter apply, to any territories oil
the United States. Since that time oul
government has been changed and recon
structed, and the importation ofslaves from
abroad, is totally prohibited under the
strongest possible penalties. Clrc"mstan-
ces now ersst, which, Mr.. Madison says, had
they existed then, would have prevented
the restriction of slavery, from being adop-
ted or perhaps thought ".
But it has been said, that the Wilmot
Proviso, ought to be called "Jeffsrson's
Proviso - and intact, some few have so
denominated it. The design of the provi-
s~oists in connecting Mr.. Jefferson's great
name with this question, is very apparent.
It is to gain some countenance and some
character beyond what the merits of the
"PRovIso" deserve. And on what ground
is the unblushing assumption made, that MIR.
Jefferson's opinions were favorable to the
Wilmot Proviso? The only pretext for SO
doing, is the fact that he in 1854, proposed
in Congress a restriction for the north -wesI
territory. His proposition was rejected,
and in 1857, when the ordinance was adop-
ted, he was Minister to Paris, France; and
| have already shown that these restrictions
of slavery, were then designed to check the
evil o~fimporting slaves from abroad ;where-
as the design and object of the "Proviso"
is, not to affect foreign importation, for thai
is already prohibited by law; but to pre-
vent the slaves now in the Unined STATES
from being diffused over a wider surface,