The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-03-02

orabls words, to step to the uery verge o
the poloers rested IN 1T to discourage SLa
very; and this prayer, now sounding
from the tomb Of Franklin, procIaims the
true national policy Of the Fathers. No
encouragement, but disbursement o
Slavery, not its naturalization, but its de-
naturalization, was their rule.
The memorial Of Franklin, with othel
memorials of similar character, was re-
ferred to a Committee, and much debated
in the House, which finally sanctioned
the following resolution, and directed the
same to be entered upon IFS journals, VIZ
That Congress have no authority TO inter
fere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the
treatment of them, within any of the States
ii remaining pith the several States to proridt
any regulations therein, ichich humanity ana
true policy may require"
This resolution, declaring the principle
of non-interyention by Congress with Sla-
very in the States, was adopted by the
same Congress which had solemnly af-
frmed the prohibition of Slavery In all
the existing Territory of the Union And
il is on these double acts, at the first or
ganization of the Government, and the
recorded sentiments of the founders, that
l take my stand, and challenge all ques-
ton.
AT this time there was strictly no divid-
ing line in the country between Anti.
Slavery and Pro-Slayery. The Anti-Slavery
sentiment was thoroughly national, broad
and general, pervading alike all parts Of
the Union, and uprising from the com.
mon heart of the entire people. The Pro-
Slavery interest was strictly personal and
pecuniary, and had its source simply in the
self-interest Of individual shareholders. |,
contemplated Slavery only as domestic
institution II not as political element -
and merely stipulated for its security where
it actually existed within the States.
Sir, the original policy of the country is
clear and unmistakable, Compendious.
ly expressed, it was non-interpention b,
Congress aciM Slavery in the States, ana
ats prohibition in all tho national domain
In this way, the discerdaBt feelings on
ms ms subject were reconciled. Slave mas
tiers were left, at home, in their respective
States, to hug Slavery, under the protec-
ton of local laws, without any interference
from Congress, while all opposed to it were
exempted from any responsibility therefor
in the national domain. This, sir, is the
common ground on which our political
fabric was reared; and do not hesitate
to say that it is the only ground on which
it can stand in permanent peace.
1t is beyond question, sir that our Con-
stitution was framed by the lovers Of HUI
man Rights that it was animated by their
divine spirit: that the institution of Sla-
very was regarded by them with aversion,
so that, though covertly alluded to, it
was not named in the instrument; that,
according TO the debates in the Conven-
ton, they refused to give it any "sanc-
ton" and looked forward to the certain
day when it would be oblterated from
the land. But the original policy OF
the Government did not long prevail.
The generous sentiments which filled the
early patriots, giving to them historic
grandeur, gradually lost their power.
The blessings of freedom being already
secured to themselves, the freemen of the
land grew Indifferent to the freedom of
others. They ceased to think of the
slaves. The slave-masters ayailed them
selves of this indifference, and, though
few in numbers, compared with the nom
shareholders, even in the slave States,
according to the late census they are
fewer than 800, 900 in the whole country,
they have, under the influence of an
imagined self-interest, by the skilful tao
tics of party, and especially by an unhesi-
tating, persevering union among them
understanding, by turns, both the great
political parties-succeeded, through a
long succession of years, in obtaining the
control of the National Government, bend
ing it to their purposes, compelling it to
do their will, and imposing upon it pol
icy friendly to Slavery; offensive to Free
dom only, and directly opposed to the
sentiments of its founders. Our Republic
has swollen in population and power
but it has shrunk in character. 1t is not
now what it was at the beginning, a
Republic merely permitting, while it re-
gretted Slavery tolerating it only where il
could not be removed, and interdicting i,
where it did not exist-but a mighty Prop
agandist, openly favoring and indicating
il; visiting, also, with displeasure all who
oppose IT.
The extent to which its original policy
has been changed can be placed beyond
question. Early in our history, no man
was disqualified for public Office by reason
of his opinions on this subject; and this
condition continued for long period
As late a, 1921, John w. Taylor, Repre-
sentative from New York, who had pressed
with so much energy. not merely the pro
hibition of Slavery in the Territories, blu
its restriction in the State of Missouri
was elected to the chair of Henry Clay, a
| Speaker Of the other House. 1t is need
less 10 add, that no determined sup
porter of the Wilmot Proviso at this da,
could expect that eminent trust. An ar
rogant and unrelenting ostracism is nov
applied, not only to all who express them
selves against Slavery, but to every mai
who will not be its mental. A novel ties
for Office has been introduced, whicl
would have excluded all the Fathers O
the Republic-even Washington, Jeffer
son, and Franklin. Yes, sir: startling
may be, but indisputable. Could thes
illustrious men descend from their realm
above, and revisit the land which they ha
nobly dedicated TO freedom, they coul
not, with their well-known and recorde
opinions against Slavery, receive nomi
nation for the Presidency from either c
the old political parties. Nor coul
John Jay, our first Chief Justice, an
great exemplar of Judicial virtue-wh
hated Slavery, as he loved Justice-be ad
mitted to resume those duties with whic
his name on earth is indissolubly asso