The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-16
THE NATIONAL ERA WASHINGTON, D. c. FEBRUARY le 1854


and the act received the sanction of the Presi
dent.
Thus we see that the parties to the arrange.
meut were the two sections of the country--the
free States on one side the slave States on the
other. The subject of it was, the whole terri
tory west of the Mississippi, outside of the State
of Louisiana; and the practical operation of il
was, the division of this territory between the
Institution of Slavery and the institution OF
Freedom.
The arrangement was proposed by the slave
States 1t was carried by their votes. A large
majority of Southern Senators voted for it q
MAJORITY of Southern Representatives voted for
it. 1t was approved by all the Southern mem
bers of the Cabinet, and received the sanction
of Southern President The compact was
embodied in single bill, containing reciprocal
provisions The admission of Missouri with
Slavery, and the understanding that Slavery
should not be prohibited by Congress south OF
SO deg. 80 min were the con siderations of the
perpetual prohibition north of that line; and
that prohibition was the consideration of the
admission, and the understanding. The slave
States received largo share of the considera-
ton coming to them, paid in hand Missouri
was admitted without restriction, by the act
itself Every other part Of the compact on the
rart of the free Sthtes, has been fulfilled to the
Mttcr. No part of the compact on the part Of
THE slave States has been fulfilled at all except
in the admission of Iowa and the organization
of Minnesota; and now the slave States pro-
pcse to break up the contract, without the con-
sent and against the will of the free States, and
upon doctrine of supersedure which, If sane
toned at all, must be inevitably extended so as
TO overthrow the existing prohibition of Slave
yy in a the organized Territories.
Il n ~ 90 4
from Riies's Register, published In Baltimore,
March II, 1920 which shows clearly what was
then the universal understanding in respect to
this arrangement:
HThe territory north of SO deg. 80 min. is
fo7eUer' forbidden to be peOpled with slaves,
EXCEPT in the State Of Missouri The right,
ths.n, to inhibit Slavery in any of the Terrific
ries is clearly and completely acknowledged,
and it is conditioned, as to some of them, that
even when they become States, Slavery shall be
! 'foreUer' prohibited in them. There is no
hardship in this. The Territories belong to
the United States and the Government may
rightfully prescribe the terms on which it will
dispose of the public lands. This great point
was agreed to in the Senate, 33 votes to | /
ard in the House of Representatives, by "a to
termned 'forever' in respect to the countries
now subject to the Legislation of the General
Government"
ask Senator's particularly to mark this:
"H is true the Compromise rs supported only
By the letter of the ia,y repeaiabie by the authority
qcAich enacted A., bit the circumstances of The
case gire TO Mis tdW MORAL FORCE equal to
that of posiiire provision of the Constitution :
and q0e do not hazard anyhing by saying that
The Constitution, EXISTS an Us obserponce Both
parties have sacrificed much to Cancellation.
| We irish TO see The COMPACT kept an good faith,
and we trust that a kind Providence will open
the way to relieve us of an evil which every
good citizen doprecates as the supreme curse
of the country"
That sir, was the language of {. Marylandcr,
in 1920. He expressed the universal under
standing of the country Here, then is a COM
pact complete, perfect, irrepealable SO far as
any compact can be said to be irrepealable,
which is embodied in legislative act. 1t
had the two sections of the country for its par
ties a great territory for its subject, and per-
manent adjustment Of n dangerous controversy
for Its object 1t was forced upon the free
States. 1t has been literally fulfilled by the
free States. It is binding, indeed only upon
honor and conscience; but, in such matter,
tho obligations of honor and conscience must
be regarded as even moro sacred than those of
Constitutional provisions
Mr.. President, If there was any principle
which prevailed in this arrangement it was
that of permitting the continuance of Slavery
the Il localities a s ThsHs afq se zssa st th
prohibiting it in the parts of Territory in which
no slaves were actually held. This was wide
departure from the original policy which con-
tcmplated the exclusion of Slavery from terri
tories in which it actually existed at the time
Of acquisition. But the idea that Slavery could
ever be introduced into free territory, under
the sanction of Congress, had not, rs yet en-
tered into any mans head.
Mr.. President, shall hasten to a conclusion
In 1913 we acquired a vast territory from
Mexico. Tie free States demanded that this
territory free when acquired, should remain
free under the Government Of the United
States The Senator from Illinois tells us that
he proposed the extension Of the Missouri Com
promise line through this territory and he
complains that it was rejected by the votes of
the free States So it was. And why? Be-
cause the Missouri Compromise applied to tor
rit0ry in which Slavery was already allowed
The Missouri prohibition exempted portion
of this territory, and the larger portion, from
the evil. Ii carried out, i'll respect to that the
original policy of the country. But the ex-
tension of that line through the territory ac-
quired from Mexico, with the understanding
which the Senator from illinois and his friends
attached to it, would introduce Slavery into
vast region in which Slavery at the time OF
acquisition, was not allowed. To agree to it
would have been to reverse totally the original
policy Of the country and to disregard the
principle upon which the Missouri Compromise
was based.
| lt is true that when the controversy in respect
| to this Territory came to conclusion, the pro-
visions of the acts by which Territorial Gov
ernments were organized were in some respects
worse than that proposition Of the Senator
While those bills professcd TO leave the question
of Slavery or no Slavery in the Territories, IN
affected by their provisions to judicial decision
they did, nevertheless virtually decide the ques-
ton for all the territory covered by them, 80
far as legislation could decide il, against Free
dom. California, indeed was admitted as free
State and by her admission the scheme of cx-
tending line of slave States to the Pacific was
for the time defeated. Tho principle upon
which Northern friends Of the Territorial Com
pregaisc acts indicated their support OF them
was tI&s: Slavery is prohibited in these Terri
/ tories By Mexican law; that law is not repeal
| cd by amy provision Of the acts; indeed said
many OF them, Slavery cannot exist in any Ter
ritory except IN virtue of positive act of Con-
gress no such act allows Slavery there; there
is 40 danger, thopefsse, that any slaSes will Lc
taken INTO the Territory. SOutherne supporters
| Of the measures sustained them upon quite OPP
| pOsito grounds. Under the provisions of the
Federal Constitution, they said the STAKEHOLDER
can held his slaves in any Territory, in spite Of
any prohibition Of Il Territorial Legislature or
even Of an net Of Congress. The Mexican law
forliddlng Slavery was abrogated at the mo-
! ln'ns OF acquisition, by the operation of the
Constitution. Congress has not undertaken to
impose any prohibition. We can, therefore,