The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-03-27
For the National Era.
SUPREME COURT AND ORDINANCE OF 1877.

see tnat the Oniteu states supreme COuTt
has been very free in giving an extra;judcial de-
cision against the validity Of the Ordinance of
1857, which we have all along esteemed to be our
fundamental law and our shield Of freedom. If |
understand them, their main reason for their
opnon seems to be that if the Ordinance is left in
force the States would not be on an sexual foot
| ing y in the language of the Constitution. Good
| Heavens what a reason! 1t is true that Con-
gress has right to admit new States on an "eqHaL
Io0tiagp with the old ones But this does not
mean on an syaal degradation with the moTa Of
them on an equal depOiSm with the most vicious.
| take il that there was meant to be some standard
or basis of equality; was it the low, degrading,
despotic anti-republcGn basis; or the high, no.
| BILE democratic free one Again, for whose ben
eft was the Supreme Court taking mot deeidng)
when wishing to place States upon an 6Qual foot
! iag ? Was il for the benefit Of those States ly-
ing under the Ordinance compact Did the Su-
preme Court think that we Tdnted larger hber-
| ~, and would not be free to introduce slavery
! and involuntary seTvitude unless they should de-
clare The Ordinance Of no force upon us? Did
taty Eish to give the same degree of hbertinism
that the worst States claim for themselves Did
they declare this glorious Ordinance invalid, in
order 10 give us wider scope to do wrong? If
they did, We don't thank them for this gratuitous
opinion. We ask not the privilege Of making
monarchy, an oligarchy a despotism The
standard of equality, to which all should come, we
claim to be that high one laid down in the Ordi-
nance, and contemplated by the Constitution and
|. not that low practiced by South Carolina,
and not contemplated by the Constitution.
| had supposed the Ordinance Of 1897 to be a
| regular compact las IL expresses itself between
the original States and the people of the Terri
tory, and the States to be formed out of it, for
ever binding and unalterable, unless by common
consent. | never knew, or heard, of its being al
tered, or Of any attempt being made for that pur-
| pose unless we refer TO the attempt to suspend
its operation in Indiana for the purpose Of intro
! ducing slavery there On the contrary, | had
heard Of its being ratified by the first Congress,
almost unanimously, and of each State admitted
from its territory being put under the condition
of abiding by and conforming to that Ordinance :;
and that condition has been complied with on the
part of these Northwestern States generally
The Ordinance, when made, referred 10, and was
binding in express terms upon, the States to be
formed out of this territory.
The people here, in the Territory, did not
adopt the Constitution The original States,
acting alone in making and adopting the Consti-
tuition, had no power TO alter the Ordinance COM
pact without the consent of the people of the
Territory The Constitution was made by the
old States without attempting to set aside the Or
dinance. They did not even insist that a new
State when it should come to ask for admission
from this territory, should be admitted upon con-
dition of its giving up the Ordinance compact
On the contrary, they required conformity to the
Ordinance, and made that condition of admis-
sion. There is nothing expressed in the Consti-
tuition, by which the Supreme Court should come
to so miserable a conclusion as that, by adopting
the Constitution the Ordinance must be given
up nor is there anything from which such an
idea could be implied; nor is there anything in
| the fact of making new Constitution and leaving
the old Confederacy, which, in the nature Of
things, must make an utter conticton or incon-
sistency; so that one must fall or the other give
way No such thing On the contrary, there is
an entire consistency between the Constitution and
the Ordinance, rs they stood at the making of
both and had their provisions and spirit been
respected and had our Government acted con-
sstently with both, there would now be no conflict
in fact, and no necessity or excuse for the Su-
preme Court to say what they have said about an
equal footing, by which | understand them to
mem simply an equal footing in despotism and in-
EQUITY
The United States Constitution says that the
migration or importation Of such persons as any
of the States non ezisting shall think proper to
admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to the year lS0Sn-Sec 9, AH |. This
looked like preventing any more territory or
States from becoming slaveholding The Ord-
nance Of 1887 says (Art. g. "There shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary serviude in the
said territory, &c. provided, always, that any
person escaping into the same, from whom SER
vice is lawfully claimed in any one Of the original
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed,
| &c" Now these two instruments, Ordinance and
! Constitution, almost simultaneous in their making
and adoption looked TO the fact that there was to
be no more slave States or slave territory That
10 aI tkot
cannot be gainsayed by any intelligent, honest
unprejudoed court. The words original
States in the Ordinance, and States now exist
iugn in the Constitution, show that in this re-
spect an effort was made to have both instruments
consistent with each other. And these facts to-
gether with the provision leaving Congress the
power after 1903 to cut off the slave trade, show
that it was expected not only to prevent any more
slave States from being made, but to suppress
slavery in the old States, and thus make them
Republican. 1t seemed as though Congress were
expected to cut the jugnlar vein of slavery, in
the old States, as soon as 1908 should come
round.
! The Constitution of the United States was
made fair instrument on its face and its adai-
| ard, in conformity to which old States and new
States admitted should be placed on an fgdl foot.
mg, was simply that of Repubcanism, in contra
distinction to monarchy, oigsrchy sristocracy,
or absolutism and this Republicsnism had its
meaning, in the minds of our Revolutionary FORE
fathers, as in conformity to the principles Of the
| Declaration of independence, but not according
| to the meaning attached TO that word by old Eng
land or by South Carolina. 1t is libel upon
our forefathers. II Is untrue to the common &C
ceptation Of that word TO say that South Carolina
conforms to the standard Of Republicauism as
meant 10 be understood by our Constitution
The Declaration of independence and the prin-
ciples avowed in it, the Constitution and it's guar.
antics for liberty, the Ordinance and its prohibi-
tion of slavery, and the power given Congress to
prevent the extension Of slavery into new States
all go to show what standard Of Republicsnsm
and equality our fathers had reference to-
But according to the volunteered diotum OF
our great Supreme Court, il any State shall in
troduce despotism and have onn all the rest
in the State goods, chattels and thmgs--or shall
make complete oligarchy in substance or shall
make even monarchy in substance, but call it a
Republic-and have King, but call him Gopern.
or-or have an 0mocv0t, yet call him another name
a Republican or Democratic name, If you please
why, then, every other State must have the same
| right to do the same things, in order to be on an
"equal footing with this one State under the Con-
stitution. This done, every compact that stands in
the way of sneh equal footing must be declared
invalid We do not thank the Supreme Court
for gratuitously attempting to give US such dam
nable liberty or license to introduce slavery into
our fair State, and thereby In time have minori-
| ~ own the majority like beasts We ask no such
downward, devilsn equality. We would not es-
teen it favor
The truth is, the Supreme Court sees, with
this Ordinance In the way, that we are not bound
to deliver fugitives from service to any but the
original States. Hence the necessity of avoiding
THIS inconvenient, fundamental, forever-binding
compact In doing so, they give our standard OF
equal footing the libertine's range, the pirates
privilege. Sage men their decision will render
them famous as great and profound jurists, as in
corruptible liberty'lovng men, governed by the