Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-05-06
WHOLE No. 44ss

realise. 1t was in reference to Lord Thurlow,
who had in,erycncd in some legislative husine.,
contrary tO the orators sense Of right and deeency.
Mr.. Burke repuscd the intrusive opinion, aud
declared that he did not care three jumps Of louse
for il. Sir. | say the same Of any opinion which
may be reported here from our Secretaries ON any
bill depending before us, and that in any form 10
which it may come from thcui--whcther as unit
or as integers.
Sill less do admit the right of intervention In
our legislative duties 10 another class Of intormed-
dlcrs, and who might not be able TO mcddle at sll
with business, were II not Tor the ininistratioh
Of our bounty, lspcak Of the printers, who get
their daily dread fand that buttered on both sdes
by our daily printing; and who require the demo-
cratic members Of this House, under the insthnt
penalty Of political damnatOn, to give ia their ads
hessi0n t. every bill which they call administrations
aud that in every change it may undergo--although
more changcable than the moon. For that class
Of ntermeddlers have no parliamentary law 10
administer, nor any quotation from Burke 10 aps
ply--nothing hut little fable to read the valus
Of which, as in all good fables, lies IN its moral.
II is in French and entitled. Lane q son naifre;"
which being done into England signifies, "Ths
aud his n0stcg;" and runs thus.
"An oss took IL into his head to scare his master;
and put on a lions skin, and went and stood in
the path. And when he saw his master coming
he commenced roaring, rs hc thought; but he only
brayed, and the master hncw it was his so he
went up to him with cudgcl and beat him nearly
10 death"
Thnt is the end Of the fable, and the moral Of
it is, "a caution 10 all asses to take how they
they undertake 10 scare their masters" (Great
npplausc)
MIR. Chairman this House will, have fallen far
below its constitutional mission, il it suffers itself
to be governed by authority, or dragooned by hs
own hirelings. am man Of no bargains. buf
act openly with any man that acts for the public
good and in this spirit, offer the right hand Of
political friendship to every member OF this body
that will stand together to yindicate its privileges
protect its respoetability, and maintain 1t in the
high place for which it ntended-the master
branch of the American Government.
The question before us is to get rid Of the Mis-
souri, compromise iine and to n lawyer this is an
easy question. That compromise is in the form
Of statute and one statute is repealable hy am
other. That short view is enough for lawyer.
To II statesman it is something different; and re-
'crs the question Of its repeal, not TO law looks,
but to reasons Of State policy-to the circumstances
under which it was enacted, and the consequences
which are to flow from its Obrogation. This con-
promise Of 1870 is not mere statute, to last for
day it was intended for perpctuity, and ~ declared
itself. 1t is an enactment to settle controversy
and did settle it-and cannot be abrognted without
rcviying that controversy.
1t hns given the country peace for above thirty
years how many years of disturbance will its alb
rogation bring? That is the statesman's question.
aud without assuming TO be much of statesnanJ
claim to be enough so to consider the conse-
quences Of breaking settlement which pacfcd
continent j remember the Missouri controversy,
and how it destroyed all social feeling, and all ca
pacity for beneficial legislation: and merged all
political principle in angry contest about slavery
dividing the Union into two parts and drawing
up the two halves into opposite aad confronting
lines, like enemies the field of battle do not
wish to see such times again; and, theriorc, am
againstreyiying them hy breaking up the settlement
which quiccd them.
! The Missouri compromise Of 1870 was the PAR.
7 hot t,n frpn ofi1 Sfnta nf
great province, taking the character Of u perpet.
ual settlements and classng with the two great
compromises which gave us the ordinances Of July
. 49, lTS7 and the Federal Constitution Of Septem-
Der II, Of the same year. There are three slavery
compromises in cur history. which connect them
selves with the foundation and the preservation Of
this Union. First the territorial partition Ordi-
nance Of lTS1, with its clause for the recovery Of
fugitive slaves secondly, the cotemp0raneous
constitutional recognition uf slavery in The States
which choose to have it, with the fugitive slave o.
covcry clause in the same instruments thirdly, the
Missouri partition line Of 1870, with the same
clause annexed for the recovery of fugitive slaves.
All three of these compromises are part and parcel
of the same policy: and neither If Them could
have been formed without the otLcr, nor either of
them without tho fugitive slave recovery clause
incorporated in IT, The anti-saycry clause in tho
ordinance Of lIsT could not have been adopted
las proved by its three years rejeetion) With
out the fugitive slave recovery clause added 10 Il;
the Constitution could not have lecn formed with
out It's recognition Of slavery in tho States which
chose it, and the guarantee If the right 10 recover
slaves fleeing into the free States the Missouri
controversy could not have been settled without
partition Of Louisiana between FREQ aud slavo
soil; and that partition could not hare been mads'
without the addition of the same clause for tho
recovery of fugitive slaves. Thus, alt thtco
compromises arc settlements of existing questions.
aud intended to he perpetual. They are all three
of equal moral validity. The constitutional COM
promise is guarded by higher obligation in con-
sequence of its Incorporation in that instrument;
but in no way differs from the other two in tho
circumstances which induced it, the policy which
guards H. or the consequences which would How
from its abrogation. 4 proposition to destroy the
slavery compromises IN the Constitution, would be
an open proposition to break up the Union; the
attempt to abrogate the compromises of lfSI and
ls20 would be virtual attempts to destroy the har-
mony of the Union, and prepare II for dissolution,
by destroying the confidence aud ahection III Which
it is founded.
The Missouri compromise Of 1870 Is eentinu-
alton Of the ordinance Of I7S7-its extension tothe
since acquired territory west Of the Mississippiy
and no way differing from il either m principle OF
detail The ordinance Of lTST divided the then
crrtory of the United States ahout equally between
the free and slave States; the Missouri compro-
mise line did tho same by the additional territory
of the United States as IL stood IN lS2O and IN both
cases it was done by act Of Congress, and was the
settlement Of a difficulty which was to last forever.
4 | consider them BOTH with their fugitivc slave
recovery clauses, and the similar clause in tho
Constitution, as part and parcel of the same trans
action-dilercnt articles in the same general set-
Element.
The anti-slayery clause in the ordinance Of 1887.
could not have been put in las was proved by it's
three years rejectonl without the fugitive slave
recovery clause added to it. The Constitution
could not have been formed without the recogni-
ton of slavery in tho States which chose il. aud
the right of recovering slaves fleeing to the freq
f States. The Missouri controversy could not nave
. been settled except by tho prohibition Of slavery
in the upper half Of the territory Of Louisiana
and that prohibition could not have been obtained
tho ri0ht 10 rocover fOitiya slnvoR from,