Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-11


his motion, voting into IA bill provision extending
the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific. That
proposition was sustained by the Senate with q |
majority of ten, but rejected in the House by
Northern votes with Free Soil procliyities. Whol
violated the solemn comract2 II was the defeat Of
that bill which opened the whole fury of Slavery
agitation which distracted tho country afterward
IL was the defeat Of that bill which left tho ques-
ton of Slavery unsettled, destroyed the geogrnp-
ical line and mado q now comuronse necessary
Had the North been faithful TO tic Missouri Com
promise in l04S there would have been no slavery
agitation, no excitement, no alarm. It was that
defeat of it, that abandonment of it then, that
plunged the country into a slavery agitation, dis
turDed our domestic peace, and defeated the Sena
tor from Michigan Tor the Presidency Who vio-
lated 1t thcn? These very men who now call the
missouri Compromise u sacred compact and who
now arralgucd him for q want Of faith in that sol
emn compact. Il was with bad grace that men
VINO had themselves proved false to the sacred
compact could now arraign him before the country
with doing that which was accomplished in 1913
by their iaiihlessness and treachcry. The Com
promises Of 1850 established the principle of Con-
gressione non-intorycntion and set aside the geo.
graphical line as no longer practicable. because II
had been impossible to maintain it, Was not the
establishment Of this new principle total aban-
1onmcnt and supercodurc Of the geographical line.
10 resist this inevitable conclusion, these Abolition
comic icratcs had cited an amendment proposed by
senator Mason 10 The New Mexico bill that nothing
therein contained should be construed as imparing
tile provisions Of the Texas resolution. BY nnkiug
that quotation, BY uppressng facts connected with
that question, and by ialsiHing other particulars
,oi the history OF the transaction, they had made
out plausible case. They had suppressed the fact
that by the act Of 1850, fixing the boundaries Of
Texas, large portion Of that State lying north Of
/ 50 deg 3O min, and nearly as large as New York
and Pennsylvania had been cut Off aud was includ-
/ ed in the boundaries Of New Mexico and that the
act creating the Territory Of New McSico expressly
declared that the sHme should be admitted into the
Union without Slavery, as its people might deter
mine. The New Mexico Territorial act embraces
within its boundaries this large portion Of what
was once Texas and declares that it shall be adj
mitted into the Union without slavery. Il goes
i9rther and provides that the local Legislature Of
inc Ieil1tory shall have fun power and authority
/ TO legslate upon all relirnl subjects with no re
sriction Whatever. except that imposed by the Con-
sutution Of the United States. Here the local
Legislature is Invested with full power to egislate
upon nll sulgocts including slavery. Did not these
Abolition conedernies know that these provisions
/ IN tie New McSico bill annullcd the Missouri
Compromise in all that part Of Texas which prcyi-
ously, being north of 3G deg 80 miu., was free IL
they did not know II, and il was not possible that
they did not. they had falsely represented to the
people in their address that tho Missouri C0mpro-
mise was not touched by the Acts Of 1850. They
accused him their in address in gentle terms with
an attempt TO repeal tho Missouri Compromise by
his BILL when they knew well as he did, that he
had copied the terms Of his bill from the Act of
| 1850. If It repealed the Missouri Compromise
! now, why did 1t not do it in 1850? These Abol
ton contederates had assembled somewhere on the
sabbath day and c0ncoclod SANDER upon him and
his associates Of the Copnitee and sent it forth TO
the people to prejudice them against tho bill. This
manifesto asserts falsehood one way or the other
II is false in saying that the Missouri Compromise
was hot repealed by the Pct Of 1850, or it is false
in saying that this bill rcpeals it. They must
plead guilty 70 one itsehood in order to sustain the
Other. Mr.. Mason's amendment, cited by the con-
lederates, did not bear the construction placed on
It by the address As by the New Mexico bill,
large portion Of tie territory of Texas was cut Oft
Mr.. Mason's amendment was offered with the view
oi providing that Texas should be entitled 20 the
same number of States with her reduced boundar-
les that she would be with her large and original
ones. That was the whole subject of the amend
ment. Any other would be to stultify the charac-
ter and motive Of the author. Such was the legal
effect and such its plain and obvious meaning. No
man desiring to represent the truth OF the tran
: ton could place any other construction upon it..
lie submitted to the Senate if he had not convicted
these Abolition oonedcrates of supprcssinr the
truth and ialsfyng the laws Of the country for the
purpose OF misleading the public and to malign his
character. In this manifesto, in speaking Of the
repeal Of the Missouri Compromise by the ono of
f 1850, the conederatos asked: Could presumption
60 further? They ask this question in the teeth of
the TACT that the words of those acts say that the
people Of those Territories North or South Of So
deg, 30 mn shall be admitted with or without
slavery lie would soy to them, could presumption
60 further? Not only the presumption of making
the assertion, but tho presumption Of supposng the
iasehood would not bc exposed. These coniedcr-
rates assert that the Compromise of 1850 was con
| fined to the territory nc quired from Mexico; and
this assertion they make in the face Of the fact that
the act creang the Territory Of New Mexico actu-
t ally embraces within its Boundaries part Of the
original State OF Texas and bought from Texas by
lp tCl 4 az tba olI t,r
Of Louisiana coded to tho United States by France,
was also included in tho present organized territory
e of New Mexico. Utah also, as at present organ
lied and bounded was not formed entirely out oi
the territory acquired from Mexico il included q
large and fertile tract Of country acquired in the
e cesson of Louisiana. lf the Senator'S who signed
c thls manifesto Of the Abolition confederates did
not know the territory to which he referred, they
should have known it before they with this address
c containing ialsehoods arraigned him before the
d public.
n lie begged them 10 remember that all The origi
nal States were ut one time, snvcholding colonies
, at the time Of adoption Of the Constitution twelve
@ out of the thirteen States were slavehodmg. since
that time six of them had become free, not because
If of the abolition agitation in Congress, or by any
e action of tho General Government, but by the free
/ and untrammelcd exercise Of the great principle
h of sclfgoyenmcnt, which would always lead men
and States 20 do all things best calculated 10 pro
IS mote their own interests. Thus New-llanpshirc
& had abolished Slavery, and GeJrga, had hot
IS Connecticut abolished it, and South Carolina re-
l. tanned it. Not one of those States had abolished
Slavery because Of the Wilmot Provso ordinance
n of 1881, Congressional agitation but they hac
t. abolished it because free to act upon the principle
o of selfgovernment. They abolished such institu
n ons whenever their interests required it. Slavery
1t was never abolished or prevented by COngressOna
e enactment. 1t was not prohibited in the North
west Territory; it was prohibited by law, but no
O. in fact. When Illinois was formed into teritora
d. government she established Slavery at once main
ID tanned it, and held it in utter defiance of the ordi
A. that Slavery should not exist there she did have it
e. and the very day that Congress withdrew tho pro
AZ lhbiton, she took measures TO establisha system
ct of emancipation They did not abolish it for tin