Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-17
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

III pursuance OF TINS Oruiuance, the several
Territorial Governments successfully establish
ed in the Northwest Territory were organized
with a prohibition Of the introduction of slave
ry, and in due time, though al successive peri
DDS, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and
Wisconsin, States erected within that Territory.
have come into the Union with Constitutions in
their hands forever prohibiting slavery and in
voluntary servitude, except for the punishment
of crime They are yet young; but, neverthe-
less, who has ever seen elsewhere such States
as they are! There are gathered the young,
the vigorous, the active, the enlightened sons
Of every State, the flower and chiyalry Of
every State in this broad Union; and there
the emigrant for conscience sake, and for free
dom's sake, from every land in Europe, from
proud and all conquering Britain, from heart
broken Ireland, from sunny Italy, from mercu-
rial France, from spiritual Germany, from
chivalrous Hungary, and from honest and
brave old Sweden and Norway. Thence are
already coming ample supplies Of corn and
wheat and wine for the manufacturers Of the
East, for the planters of the tropics and even for
the artisans and the armies of Europe; and
thence will continue to come in long success
sion, as they have already begun to come,
statesmen and Legislators for this continent
Thus il appears, Mr.. President, that it was
the policy Of our fathers, in regard TO the origin
al domain of the United States, 10 prevent the
introduction of slavery, wherever it was prac-
ucable. This policy encountered greater diff
culites when il came under consideration with
a view 10 its establishment in regions not in
cluded within our original domain. While
slavery had been actually abolished already, by
some of the emancipating States, several Of
them, owing to a great change in the relative
UalIIo If ha pradl,cfianc IF cla va labor h.d
fallen off into the class Of non emancipating
States; and now the whole family of States
was divided and classified as slaveholding or
slave States, and non acknowledging or free
States. A rivalry for political ascendency was
soon developed; and, besides the motives Of
interest and philanthropy which had before
existed, there was now on each side desire to
increase, from among the candidates for ad-
mission into the Union, the number Of States in
their respective classes, and SO their relative
weight and influence in the Federal Councils.
The country which had been acquired from
France was, in 1904, organized in two Terri
tories, one OF which, including New Orleans as
its capital, was called Orleans, and the other,
having st. Louis for its chief town, was called
Louisiana. In 1912, the Territory of Orleans
was admitted as a new State, under the name
Of Louisiana. 1t had been an old saveholding
colony Of France, and the prevention of slavery
within it would have been simple act of
abolition. AT the same time, the Territory of
Louisiana, by authority of Congress, took the
name Of Missouri; and, in 1919, the portion
thereof which now constitutes the State of Ar
kansas was detached, and beanie Territory,
under that name. In 1919, Missouri, which
was then but thinly peopled, and had an incon-
sidereble number Of slaves, applied for admis-
sion into the Union, and her application brought
the question of extending TO that State, and to
other new States in the region acquired from
France, the policy Of the Ordinance OF 1887,
tives insisted on prohibition against the fur
ther introduction Of slavery in the State, as a
condition of her admission. The Senate dis
agreed with the House in that demand The
non slaveholding States sustained the House,
and the slaveholding States sustained the
Senate. The difference was radical, and tended
towards revolution.
One party maintained that the condition de-
manded was constitutional, the other that il
was unconstitutional The public mind be-
came intensely excited, and painful apprehen-
sions Of disunion and civil war.began to pre-
vail in the country.
In this crisis, majority of both Houses
agreed upon plan for the adjustment Of the
controversy. BY this plan, Maine, non
slaveholding State, was to be admitted; Missou-
ri was TO be admitted without submitting to
the condition before mentioned and in all that
part of the Territory acquired from France,
which was north of the line of SO deg 80 min.
of north latitude, slavery was to be forever
prohibited. Louisiana, which was a part of
that Territory, had been admitted as slave
State eight years before; and now, not only
was Missouri to be admitted as slave State,
but Arkansas, which was south OF that line,
by strong implication, was also to be admitted
as slaveholding State. | need not Indicate
what were the equivalents which the respect
i've parties were TO receive in this arrangement,
further than TO say that the slavehodng States
practically were 10 receive saveholding States,
the free States TO receive desert, solitude, in
which they might, if they could, plant the
germs OF future free States This measure was
adopted. TWAS great national transaction
the first or class of transactions which have
since come to be thoroughly defined and well
understood, under the name Of compromises.
My own opinions concerning them are well
known, and are not in question here. According
10 the general understanding, they are marked
by peculiar circumstances and features viz:
First, there is division Of opinion upon
some vital national question between the two
Houses Of Congress, which division is rrecon-
cilabe, except by mutual concessions Of inter-
ests and opinions, which the Houses deem con-
stitutional and just.
Secondly, they are rendered necessary by
impending caamities, 10 result from the failure
of legislation, and to be no otherwise averted
than by such mutual concessions, or sacrifices.
Thirdly, that such concessions are mutual
and equal or are accepted as such, and so be-
come conditions of the mutual arrangement.
Fourthly, that by this mutual exchange Of
conditions, the transaction takes on the nature
and condition Of contract, compact, or treaty,
between the parties represented and so, ac-
cording to well-settled principles Of morality
and public law, the statute which embodies it
IS understood, by those who uphold this system
Of legislation, to be irrevocabe and irrepeala-
Bile, except by the mutual consent Of both, or
Of all the parties concerned. Not, indeed, that
il is absolutely irrepealable, but that il cannot