Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-02-15

virtue of their right as freemen under the Const-
tnton Of the United States, to establish ana aoo.-
ish such institutions as they thought their own
good required
excluding slavery by sn act Of Congress from one
iueh of the American soil You may tell me that
Won did il in the northwest territory by the ordi-
nance of 1857. / will show you by the history
of the country that you did not accomplish any
such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law,
but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was
part Of the northwest territory. With the exceP-
ton of few French and white settlements, II
was vast wilderness, filled with hostile saVages'
when the ordinance of 1887 was adopted. fet,
sir, when Illinois was organized into territorial
government il established and protected slavery,
and maintained it in spite Of your ordnance, and
in defiance of its express prohibition. 1t is Gu
rous fact that so long Congress said the terri
tory of Illinois should not have slavery, she ac-
tually had it; and on the very day when you with
drew your congressional prohibition, the people
ofIllinois, Of their own free will and accord pro-
vided for a system of emancipation.
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory
with your ordinance or Your Wlimot provlso, be-
cause the people there regarded it as an invasion
of their rights. They regarded it as usurpation
on the part of the Federal Government They re-
garded it as violative of the great principles OF
self-government, and they detetermined that they
would never submit even 10 nave Teeuom 81 iouS
as you forced it upon them.
Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished
b in the constitution of Illinois in order 10 be ad-
mitted into the Union, a State, in compliance
with the ordinance of 1887, for they did no such
thing. In the constitution with which the people
of Illinois were admitted into the Union they alb
soutely violated, disregarded, and repudated your
ordinance. The ordinance said that slavery should
be forever prohibited in that country. The con-
stitution with which you received them into the
Union as state said that all slaves then in the
State should remain slaves for life, and that all
persons born of slave parents after certain day
should be free at a certain age, and that all per-
sons born in the State after q certain other day
should be free from the time of their birth. Thus
their State constitution, well us their territorl-
al legislation repudiated your ordinance Illinois,
therefore, is a case in point to prove that when
ever you have attempted to dictate institutions to
any part of the United States, you have failed
The same is true, though not to the same extent.
with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where
there were many slaves during the time OF its ter
ritorial existence; and believe also there were
few in the Territory of Ohio.
But, sir, these Abolition confederates in their
manifesto, have also referred to the wonderful re-
suits of their policy in the State OF Iowa and the
Territory of Minnesta. Here again they happen
to be in fault as to the laws Of the land. The
act to organize the Territory of Iowa did not pro.
hibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were allowed
to do as they pleased under the territorial gov
ernment for the sixth section of that act provided
that the legislative authority should extend to all
rightful subjects of legislation, except as to the
disposition of the public lands, and taxes in Ger.
tain cases, but not excepting slavery. 1t may,
however, be said by some that slavery was pro-
hbited in Iowa by virtue Of that clause in the
Iowa act which declared the laws of Wisconsin
to be in force therein, nasmuch as the ordinance
of 1887 was one of the laws of Wisconsin. IT,
however, they say this, they defeat their object
because the very clause which transfers the laws
OF Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes them of force
therein, also provides that those laws are subject
to be altered, modified or repealed by the Terri
torial Legislature of Iowa. Iowa, therefore, was
left to do as she pleased. Iowa, when she came
to form constitution and State government, pre-
paratory to admission into the Union, considered
The subject Of free and slave institutions calmly
dispassionately, without any restraint or dlctatlon
and determined that it would be to the interest o
her people in their climate, and with their pro
ductions, to prohibit slavery, and hence Iowa be
came free State by virtue of this great principle
of allowing the people to do as they please, ant
not in obedience to any federal command.
The Abolitionists are also in the habit of refer
ring to Oregon as another instance of the triumph
of their abolition policy. There again they have
Ov .iooked or misrepresented the history OF the
country. Sir, it is we'll known, or ii it is not, Il
ought to be- that for about twelve years you tailet
to give Oregon any government or any protection
and during that period the inhabitants of tina
country established government OF their own
and by virtue of their own laws, passed by thei
own representatives befrt you extended youl
jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by
unanimous vote. Slavery was prohibited there BY
the action Of the people themselves, and not b.
virtue of any legislation OF Congress.
1t is true that in the midst of the tornado which
swept over the country in l64S, l849, and 1850,
provision was forced into the Oregon bill prohib
ting slavery in that Territory; but that only goe
to show that the object of those who pressed
was not so much to establish free institutions a
to gain political advantage by giving an ascend
ency to their peculiar doctrines, in the laws OF tn
lands for slavery having been already prohibited
there, and no man proposing TO establish it, wha
was the necessity for insulting the people of Ore
gon by saying in your law that they should not d.
that which they had unanimously said they did nc
wish to do! That was the only effect of you
legislation, so far as the Territory of Oregon wa
concerned
How was it in regard to California! Ever
one of these abolition confederates who have thu
arragned me and the Committee on Territo'ie
before the country, who have msrepresented OF
position, and misquoted the law and the fact, pre-
dicted that unless Congress interposed by laV
and prohibited slavery in California, it would il
evitably become slave-holding State Congrei
did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit slav'
ry., There was no enactment upon the subjec
but the people formed State constitution, al
then prohibited slavery.
Mr.. WELLER The vote was unanimous i'll Il
convention of California % prohibition.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard to Utah al
New Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any a
tempt to force institutions upon the people
those Territories, inconsistent with their wish
and their right to decide for themselves, were d
hounced as slavery propagandists Every one