Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-04

do they please subject only to the provisions Of the
Constitution Of the United States. II that principle is
wrong, the bill Is wrong II that principle is right the
bill is right tits unnecessary to bubble about phrase
ology words; it is not the mere words the mere
phraseology, that constituents wish to Judge by
They wish to know the legal effect Of Legislation
The legal effect of this BILL it be passed rs reported
by the Committee Territories is neither legsate
slavery into these Territories out of them to leave
thepeope do they please under the provisions and sub
ject to the limitations Of the Constitution Of the United
States. Why should not this principle prevail? Why
should any man. North South, object to it? win
pecaly address the argument to my section Of
try aud ask why should any Northern object this
princpe you will review the history of the slavery
question in the United States you will that oil the
great results in behalf Of free institutions which have
been worked out have been accomplished by the opera
ton Of this principle and by it alone
When these States colonies Of Great Britain every
one of them saveholdng province. When the Con-
sttuton OF the United States formed twelve out of
the thirteen saveholdng States. Since that time
six Of those States have become Free How has this been
effected Was il by virtue of abolition agitation in Con-
gress Was it in obedience the dictates of the Federal
Government? Not ut all but they have become free
States under the silent but sure and irresistible working
Of that great principle of sefgovernmen which teaches
every people do that which the interests Of themselves
and their posterty morally and pecuniariy may require
Under the operation Of this principle New Hampshire
became free, while South Carolina continued to hold
slaves Connecticut abolished slavery, while Georgia held
it; Rhode Island abandoned the institution while
Maryland preservedit New York. New Jersey and Penn
sylyania abolished slavery, while Virginia. North Caro-
lima, and Kentucky retained it, Did they do it your
bidding? Did they do it at the dctation of the Federal
Government Did they do it in obedience to any of your
Wmot provsos ordinances of 87? Not Mt all they
did it by virtue of their right feemen under the Con-
stitution Of the United States, to establish and abolish
such institutions they thought their good required
Let me ask where have you succeeded in excluding
slavery by act of Congress from inch Of the Ame
rican soil You may tell that you did it in the north
west territory by the ordinance ofl7S7 will show you
49, Al a. 49, 4
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 exception Of few
French and white settlements it vast wilderness
filed with hostile savages when the ordinance of 1887
adopted Yet sir when Illinois was organized into
territorial government it established and protected
slavery and maintained in spite Of your ordinance and
in defiance of its express prohibition. 1t is curious
fact that so long Congress said the Territory of lii
nos should not have slavery she actually had it, on
the very day when you withdrew your Congressional pro-
hbition the people of Illinois, Of their free will and
accord, provided for q system of emancipation.
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your
ordinance or your Wilmot proyiso, because the people
there regarded it invasion Of their rights They
regarded it as usurpation the part Of the Federal
Government. They regarded it volave Of the great
principles Of self government and they determined that
they would never submit even to have freedom long
you forced II ron them.
Nor must II be said that slavery abolished in the
constitution Of Illinois in order to be admitted into the
Union State. in compliance with the ordinance Of
1856 for they did such thing In the constitution with
which the people Of Illinois admitted into the Union
they absolutely violated dsregarded and repuated your
ordinance The ordinance said that slavery should be
forever prohibited in that country The constitution with
which you received them into the Union State said
that oil slaves then in the State should remain slaves for
life; and that oil persons born Of slave parents after
certain day should be free at certain age and that all
persons born in the State after certain ether day should
be free from the time of their birth Thus their State
constitution as well as their Territorial legislation
pudated your ordinance Illinois, therefore, is in
point to prove that whenever you have attempted to die
tate institutions any part of the United States you have
failed The is true though the same extent
with reference to the Territory Of Indiana where there
ence and believe also, there few in the Terri
tory Of Ohio.
But sir, these abolition confederates in their manifesto
have also referred to the wonderful results of their policy
the State of Iowa and the Territory of Minnesota Here
again they happen to be in fault the laws of the
land The act to organize the Territory Of Iowa did not
prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa allowed
do they pleased under the Territorial Government for
the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative
authority should extend to all rghtful subjects of egis-
laton, except to the disposition Of the public lands and
taxes In certain cases. but not excepting slavery may
however be said by that slavery was prohibited in
Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act which de-
cared the laws of Wisconsin to in force therein mas
much as the ordinance of 1877 Of the laws Of
Wisconsin IT, however, they say this they defeat their
object because the clause which transfers the laws
of Wisconsin to Iowa and makes them Of force therein
also provides that those laws subject to be altered
modified repealed by the Territorial Legislature of
Iowa. Iowa, therefore, left to do as she pleased
Iowa, when she came to form constitution and State
Government preparatory to admission into the Unon,
considered the subject of free and slave institutions calm
~ dispassionatey, without any restraint or dctaton
and determined that it would be the interest Of her
people, in their climate and with their productions to pro-
hibt slavery and hence Iowa became free State by
virtue of this great principle of allowing the people to
do MS they please, and not in obedience any Federal
The abotionsts also in the habit Of referring to
Oregon rs another instance of the triumph of their abo
ltion policy There again they have overlooked mis-
the history of the country Sir it is well
known if tsnot it ought be- that for about twelve
years you failed to give Oregon any government or
any projections and during that period the inhabitants
OF that country established government Of their own
and by virtue of their laws, passed by their
before you extended jurisdiction over
them prohibited slavery by unanimous vote. Slavery
prohibited there by the action of the people them
selves and not by virtue of any legislation Of Congress
1t is true thatn the midst Of the tornado which swept
the country in 1S48 1849 and 1850 provision was
forced into the Oregon bill prohibiting slavery in that
Territory but that only goes show that the object of
those who pressed it not much establish free
as to gain political advantage by giving IN
ascendency to their peculiar doctrines in the laws Of the
land for slavery having been already prohibited there
and no man proposing to establish it, what the ne
cessiy for insulting the people Of Oregon by saying in
your law that they should do that which they had
said they did not wish to do That the
only effect of your legislation, far the Territory of
Oregon was concerned.
How was 1t in regard to California? Every one of
these abolition conederates who have thus arraigned me
and the Committee Territories before the country who
have msrepresented position and msquoted the law
and the fact predicted that unless Congress nterposed