The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-04-28


meaning an ordinance An ordinance is
law-an engagement is when one ia bound to
do some act for another. The construction
contended for by the gentleman would include
all the ordinances Of the old Confederation, and
make them binding upon the present Govern
ment, although they might be in direct conflict
with our Constitution it would include the old
Articles of Confederation, and this think suii-
GENTLY demonstrates that the argument is alb
surd
advise the gentleman from Howard to be
little careful how he uses the epithet Of Free
Soiler," like the Athenian bastard throwing
stones in the street, who was advised by the
| philosopher 10 beware, lest he should strike
his own father ! now tell the gentleman to
beware lest he strike his political father-Alr.
Calhoun 1t is matter of history, that Mr.. Cal
| houn, whilst member of Mr. Monroe's Cab
met, in common with every member OF that
| Cabinet advised the President to sanction the
Missouri Compromise act by which act Mis-
| souri, was admitted as a State into the Union,
and slavery was prohibited in all the territory
north of SO deg. 80 min, and not included in
the limits of Missouri. The gentleman does
not deny that Mr.. Calhoun advised Mr.. Mon
roe to sanction the Missouri Compromise act,
prohibiting slavery in territory south OF SO deg.
30 min, the fact is attested by President
| Monroe and J. q. Adams J but he contends
that Mr.. Calhoun simply assented to il, and
that he believes the provision prohibiting
slavery TO be unconstitutional. This is
grave accusation against Mr.. Calhoun, from
which | shall exonerate him. Mr. Calhoun
never would have advised President Monroe
to sanction an act that he conceived to be I'M
constitutional; that would be TO advise the
President to violate the Constitution, which
both he and tho President had sworn to main
tain. Mr.. Calhoun must have thought the
act constitutional, or he would not have as
sented to it, There are persons from whose
acts no such inference could be drawn-per-
sons who suppose that compromise" au-
thorizes II violation of the COnstltution-but
among people of common understanding 1T
is well established that the Constitution cannot
be compromised away, and all such persons
know that the Missouri Compromise was d.
vision of territory and not compromise of
principles.
Mr. Blair then proceeded to examine the
Jackson resolutions, to expose their repugnance
to the resolutions of the National Democracy,
their disunionism, sc, after which he con-
mented as follows upon the reasons alleged by
the nullifers for resisting to the extreme the
legislation of Congress against Slavery extern
sion.
will now notice the remarks made by the
gentleman, when appealing to the people of
Missouri, to resist tho exercise of the power by
Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery
in the Territories He stated that the effect
would be to prohibit the people of Missouri
from going to the newly acquired territories.
1t is the argument of Il demagogue. II is found
i'll Mr.. Calhoun's resolutions of l847, and has
been repeated by every nulliisr in the country
Ii is untrue in point OF fact. There are more
Mlssourlans in California, where slavery never
existed than there are people from any other
State IN the Union, in proportion to popula-
ton. This is the fact and the reason of it is,
because slavery is excluded Do you suppose
there would be now two hundred thousand Ia
boring white men in California if the South
had poured two hundred thousand slaves into
that country, to compete with their labor The
labor Of slave in California, for one year is
computed to be worth the entire value of the
slave here. If slavery had been permitted in
that country, the enormous temptation Of ma
king one thousand dollars by the labor of a
single slave in one year, would have had the
effect of carrying hundreds of thousands of
them there, and this would have had tho effect
of excluding white laborers. The brawny Mis-
sorrlan would have been excluded, the labor
ing white man of the Northern, Southern. and
Western States would have been excluded and
the harvest of gold would have been monOpo-
lied by few wealthy slave-owners whilst
under the present law no one il prohibited
from going there and living there Excluding
slavery from Territories is called discrimina-
ting against the institutions of the South and
the complaint il made that the countries ac-
CURED by the common blood and treasure
of the nation, are closed against the people of
one portion Of it. This have shown il not
true and if it was the answer to it is simple
and conclusive. Congress, in exercising the
power of legislating for Territories is bound, by
every obligation of justice and right to legis-
late for the best interest Of those Territories,
and not for the interest of any other State or
community. Thus, in legslating for New Mex.
leo, the interest of that Territory should be con-
suited, and not the interest of South Carolina
or Massachusetts,. The feelings of the people in
New Mexico are known to be repugnant to
slavery Shall North Carolina be permitted to
carry slaves there, in disregard of the feelings
of that people! Shall Indian traders be allow
cd to carry whiskey to the Indian country, and
destroy the remnant of that fallen race 1t is not
cOntended that the Government does wrong in
exercising the right to exclude liquor from the
Indian territories and yet the distillers and
vendors OF liquor might just as we'll raise n re-
belliOn against the Government, for excluding
Their property from Indian territory The
very reverse of the proposition contended for by
the nulitiers, is true If slavery were permit
ted in California, white laborers would DO ex-
cuded by the competition Of slaves-and az the |
laboring white men in the slave States exceed
in number the slavc.owners, by about five to
one it is right that the interests of this vast
majority of white laborers in the slave States
should BIO attended to before the interests of
the few slave owners. There are, for instance,
in Missouri, about seven hundred thousand in
habitants, and seventy thousand slaves. IL each
of these slaves had different master, there
would be seven non -slave-owners in the State,
to every savc-owner This VIC know il not the
case There are some persons who own hve
hundred slaves each, others one hundred, others
fifty, and most of those who are slave-Owners
have one or two families of slaves, or from
three to six slaves 1t is therefore fair to infer,
that there are not more than twenty thousand
owners OF slaves III this State, in q population
OF seven hundred thousand! Now, air, it has
occurred to me, that we should not allow one
interest to swallow up every other, and that
the non-slaveholders in these Southern States
are fairly entitled to some consideration. If /
should favor any discriminating legislation, it
would be that which would foster the interests
OF the laborer. 1t is II l-establshed fact,
that labor is the only creator of wealth, but it
is seldom or never that the laborer enjoys that
which he alone creates. Capital like a great
| M tba III al
has created. will never be party to any
legislation by which capital or property is pre-
ierred to the interest of the laborer.
shall now consider the "blood and treas
ure" argument. will venture to say that of
the rank and file, the common soldiers of our
armies which invaded Mexico, nnety-niae
| out of crnrx hundred unrn man uho annnal