Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-11

But slavery already existed in the district as part Of the
State Of North Carolina, and il probably thought
reasonable to deiy the wish Of the State for its connu
The same motives decided the action of Georgia in
making her cess Of the territory between her
limits and the mississippi and the action Of Congress
ceptng It. The acceptance Of both these cessions,
well the adoption and enactment by Congress of the
slave laws Of Maryland for the District Of Columbia
departures from original policy but they indicated
purpose 70 establish any geographical line They were
the result OF the gradually increasing indifference to
the claims OF freedom plainly perceiyable in the his
tory OF the country after the adoption of the Constitution
Luther Martin had complained in 1885, that when our
own Liberties were at stake warmly felt for the
mon rights OF man The danger being thought to be
passed which threatened ourselves we are daily growing
more and more nsensble to those rights" 1t was this
growing nsensiby which led to these departures from
original policy Afterwards, in 1903, Louisiana
quired from France Did then hasten to establish
geographical line? No. sir In Louisiana, as in the
Territories acquired from Georgia and North Carolina
Congress refraned from applying the policy of 1887
Congress did not interfere with existing slavery; Con-
gress contented itself with enacments prohibiting abso
utey the introduction of slaves from beyond the limits
Of the United States and also prohibiting their intro
ducton from any OF the States except by bona e
actually removing to Louisiana for settlement When
Louisiana was admitted into the Union, in 1872,
stricti0n imposed upon her in respect to slavery At
this time there slaves all along up the west bank
the Mississippi as far as St. Louis and perhaps even
above.
Free States awoke to the danger of the total overthrow
the original policy of the country They saw that no
State had taken measures for the abolition Of slavery
since the adoption of the Constitution They saw that
the feeble attempt to restrict the introduction Of slaves
into the territories acquired from Georgia and from
France had utterly failed They insisted therefore, that
in the formation Of constitution the people Of the pro-
posed State should embody in it provsion for the era
dual abolition of the existing slavery and prohibiting the
further introduction Of slaves By this time the slave
interest had become strong and the slave power was
pretty firmly established The demand of the free States
was vehemently contested bill preparatory to the adj
mission of Missouri containing the proposed restriction
passed by the House and sent to the Senate In that
body the bill amended by striking out the restriction
the House refused to concur in the amendment, the
Senate insisted upon it, and the bill failed At the next
session Of Congress the controversy renewed In the
time Maine had bsen severed from Massachusetts,
had adopted constitution, and had applied for admis
sion into the Union. bill providing for her admission
passed the House, and sent to the Senate This bill
amended in the Senate by lacking to it bill for the
admission of Missouri Ind by the addition of section
prohibiting slavery in al the territory acquired by Loui-
sana north of $50 30 The House refused to in
these amendments and the Senate asked for committee
of conference to which the House agreed During the
progress of these events the House, after passing the
Maine BILL had also passed bill for the admission of
Missouri embodying The restriction upon slavery in the
State The Senate amended the bill by striking out the
restriction and inserting the section prohibiting slavery
north Of 36o 30<.
This section came fm the South through Mr.. Thomas
the Senator from Iins, who had uniformly voted with
the slave States against all restriction 1t adopted
on the 18th February, 1920 as ON amendment to the
Maine and Missouri bin, by 81 ayes against 10noes.*
Mr. HUNTER. think that the provision passed with
out q division in the Senate.
Mr.. CHASE The Senator is mistaken. Fourteen
Senator's from the slave States and twenty from the free
States voted for that amndment Eight from the former
and two from the latter voted against il. No vote by
ayes and noes was takenwhen the amendment was
engrafted upon the separate Missouri bin few days
ater the sense of the Senate having been ascertaned
by the former vote.
This was the condition of matters when the committee
of conference for which the Senate had asked made
their report The members of the committee from the
Senate of favorable to the Senate amend
ments. In the House the Speaker HENRY CLAY was
also in favor Of them and he had the appointment of the
committee OF course he took care, he has since in
formed the country to constitute the committee in such
manner and OF such persons as would be most likely to
their adoption The result what might have
been expected 1t recommended that the Senate should
recede from its amendments TO the Maine BILL and thai
the House should concur in the amendments to the Mis-
souri, BILL Enough members from the free States wer
found to turn the scale against the proposed restriction
Of slavery in the State and the amendment Of the Senat
striking it out CONQUERED in by ninety yeas agains
eighty-seven nays From this moment successful oppo
ston to the introduction of Missouri with slavery
impossible Nothing remained but to determine the cha
racter of the residue OF the Louisiana acquisitions
the amendment prohibiting slavery north of $50 30 wa
concurred in by hundred and yeas agans
slave and nnetysix from free States ofthe nays thirty
seven were from slave States and FIVE from free Among
those who voted with the majority Mr. LowNDEs, OF
South Carolina whose VOTE estimated by the worth and
honor Of the man, outweighs many oppostes
Now for the first time, geographical line estab-
shed between slavery and freedom IN this country
Let us pause and ascertain upon what principle this
compromise adopted and to what territory applied
The controversy between the two great sections OF
the Union The subject vast extent of almost un-
occupied country embracing the whole territory west Of
the Mississippi 1t was territory in which slave law
listed the time of acquisition The compromise section
contained no provision allowing slavery south of $50 3O
It could never have received the sanction OF Congress if
it had The continuance Of slavery there was left to the
determination Of circumstances There was an implied
understanding that Congress should not interfere with
the operation of those circumstances, and that was a
The prohibition north of $50 30 was absolute and per-
petual The act in which it contained was submit
ted by the President his CabiAet for their opinion
upon the consutonalty Of that prohibition Calhoun
Crawford and Writ members of that Cabinet Each
in written opinion affirmed its constuhonality, and
the act received the sanction of the President Thus
that the parties the were the two
tons of the country the free States one sde the aave
States on the other The subject Of was the whole
territory west of the Mississippi outside Of the State of
louisiana and the practical operation of il the d
vision of this territory between the institution Of slavery
and the institution Of freedom.
The arrangement proposed by the slave States. 1t
was carried BY their votes large majority of Southern
Senators voted fort; majority Of Southern Represen
tatives voted for it, 1t approved by all the Southern
members Of the Cabinet and received the sanction Of
Southern President The compact embodied in u
single bill containing reciprocal provisions. The adnis
sion Of Missouri with slavery and the understanding that
slavery should be prohibited by Congress south of 500
30 were the considerations of the perpetual prohibition
north OF that line. And that prohibition the cons
deratiou Of the admission and the understanding The
slave States received large share of the consideration
coming to them paid in hand. Missouri was admitted
Inv the fhprra rt