Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-01

WAS part OF Nortn Shfuihia, irou WhcH ~
was separated three years after the passage Of
the Ordinance, and, in 1896, it was also admit
1 tod ~ a State.
AS these Territories were parts Of original
slave States, with the Slavery of which il was
| the policy of the Government not to interfere,
as the slaves they contained we're only such as
had been held under Virginia and North Caro-
lima Law, and az the transition Of the Terri
tories from being parts Of States to becoming
themselves States of the Union, was no brief
as to require scarcely any Congressional legis-
lation, the omission Of Congress to enforce the
restrictive policy in them cannot be relied
upon to prove that its original policy was not
that of Slavery Limitation. Its action in rela-
ton to the Territory Of Mississippi confirms
this view for while it respected the existing
relations of its different classes Of inhabitants,
which sprung up while the Territory acas part
and parcel Of South Carolina and Georgia it
took care to carry out the policy Of Slavery
restriction, by providing against the importa-
ton Of foreign slaves into the Territory. Rccol-
lect the prohibition of such importation was
then regarded as an Anti-Slavery measure,
and this prohibition in the case Of Mississippi
Territory was enacted April 7th, l79s--ten
years in advance Of the time when by the
Constitution Congress would have power to
put q total stop to the slave traffic. The act
went SO far rs to provide for tho immediate
Acknowledgement OF every slave imported into
the Territory in violation Of the law. Does
this look as if the Anti Slavery policy Of the
Government was limited by geographical
| line?
| So much for the original policy Of the Gov
eminent. That it was impcrceptibly departed
from after this period, is not denied; but not
under tho influence Of any opinion in favor Of
the geographical line Of policy. This, as we
the founders Of the Government nor was it
adopted till twenty-five years after the organi-
cation of the Territorial Government for Mis-
sissippi.
A brief statement will show why the origi
/ nal policy Of Slavery restriction gradually re
Taxed, and, for time, was almost suspended.
IN 1903 we purchased Louisiana. The settled
portions Of it contained some slaves, lay
along the border of the slaveholding region,
and was naturally peopled by slaveholding inn
migrants. The public attention was, however,
diverted from this condition Of things, by the
critical state of. our relations with foreign
Powers. The whole nation was soon absorbed
by questions Of vast interest, affecting our
neutral rights and the honor Of our flag The
Eastern States, in which the Anti Slavery SEN
timent had been most active, were the most
deeply concerned in these questions, being more
largely commercial. During the violent con-
troversies about embargoes non-importation
acts, and commercial warfare which con-
vulsed the country in the early part Of the Gen.
tury the People had little time or inclination
to look after the relations Of the Government
to Slavery. Meantime, the growth Of cotton,
and the extent of the market for it, had silent
ly increased the power of the Slave Interest,
and impaired the force Of Anti.Slavery scnti-
ment In 1890, 1891, and 1892, the total amount
of cotton of all kinda foreign and domestic,
exported from the United States, was only
1904 pounds, valued at $l37,737; but in
1905, 1906, and 1907, the total amount of do
mestie cotton exported was l37, ss2 oil pounds,
valued Mt $40 100000! With this vast Mo
neyed interest on the side of Slavery, and the
Anti Slavery States absorbed in u struggle in
volying all their industrial pursuits, who can be
surprised that when Territorial Government
was established for Louisiana, in 1906, Slavery
was winked at in that Territory, and the orr
ginal Anti-Slavery policy Of the Government
was not enforced?
After the struggles about Embargoes had
ceased after the war with Great Britain had
been closed, after the policy Of the country re.
quired at the conclusion Of the war for the reg
ulation Of its Trade and Finance had been set
tied, after all important Party Questions had
been disposed Of the People began to bestow
more attention on the subject Of Slavery and
it was just at this time, 1920, that question
arose which at once revealed the vast growth
of the Slave interest, and the mischief that had
resulted from the suspension Of tho original
policy Of the Government in relation 10 it, In
the aot TO authorize the People Of Missouri t.
form q State Constitution, the non-slayehold-
"
ing Representatives, aroused TO sense Of their
delinquency, attempted to regain for Freedom
what had been lost, and on amendment was
carried, prohibiting the further introduction OF
slave, into the Territory, and providing for the
emancipation Of those already there, at the age
Of twenty-five. The struggle that followed
showed that Slavery had gained an advantage il
was resolved not to part with. To restore peace
and save the Union, which some appeared to
think seriously menaced, what is called tho
Missouri Compromise was agreed upon, not
without the most strenuous opposition on the
part Of majority Of Northern members. This
tcas the first time that the policy Of geograph.
zeal dfpision bstpeen siaus territory and free had
been proposed or assented to by the Govern
ment; and 20 unpalatable was il even then 10