The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09

upon 10 prove that Its original policy was not
that of Slavery Limitation. It's action in rela-
ton to the Territory of Mississippi confirms
this view for, while it respected the existing
relations of its different classes of inhabitants,
which sprung up while the Territory ,oas part
and parcel of South Carolina and Georgia, it
took care to carry out the policy of Slavery
restriction, by providing against the iinporta-
ton of foreign slaves into the Territory. Recol-
lect the prohibition of such importation was
then regarded as an Anti-Slavery measure,
and this prohibition in the case of Mississippi
Territory was enacted April 18th, 179S-ten
years in advance of the time when by the
Constitution Congress would have power to
put total stop to the slave traffic. The act
went SO far as to provide for the immediate
Embarrassment of every slave imported into
the Territory in violation of the law. Does
this look as if the Anti Slavery policy of the
Government was limited by geographical
line!
So much for the original policy of the Gov
eminent. That it was impercsptibly departed
from after this period, is not denied but not
under the influence of any opinion in favor of
the geographical line of policy. This, as we
have seen, was not the theory or purpose Of
the founders Of the Government, nor was it
| adopted till twenty-five years after the organi-
zation of the Territorial Government for Mis-
sissippi.
A brief statement will show why the origi-
nal policy Of Slavery restriction gradually re-
Taxed, and, for q time, was almost suspended.
In 1903 we purchased Louisiana. The settled
portions Of it contained some slaves, lay
along the border of the slsveholding region,
and was naturally peopled by slaveholding i'm
migrants. The public attention was, however,
diverted from this condition of things by the
critical state Of our relations with foreign
Powers. The whole nation was soon absorbed
by questions of vast interest, affecting our
neutral rights and the honor of our flag. The
Eastern States, in which the Anti-Slavery sen
timent had been most active, were the most
deeply concerned in these questions, being more
largely commercial During the violent con-
troversies about embargoes, nOn-importation
acts, and a commercial warfare, which con-
vulsed the country in the early part of the Gen.
tury, the People had little time or inclination
to look after the relations of the Government
to Slavery. Meantime, the growth of cotton,
and the extent of the market for it, had silent
ly increased the power CT the Slave Interest,
and impaired the force of Anti 81 ayery senti-
ment In 1890, 1871, and / 1872, the total amount
of cotton Of all kinds, foreign and domestic,
ia l.
1904 pounds, valued at Sl37,737; but in
1905, 1906, and 1907, the total amount Of do
nestle cotton exported was l37, 992 oil pounds,
valued at $4,000 OO With this vast Mo-
neyed Interest on the side of Slavery and the
Anti-Slavery States absorbed in struggle in
yolving all their Industrial pursuits who can be |
surprised that when a Territorial Government |
was established for Louisiana, in 1905, Slavery |
was winked at in that Territory, and the orr
ginal Anti-Slavery policy of the Government
was not enforced?
After the struggles about Embargoes had
ceased, after the war with Great Britain had |
been closed, after the policy of the country, re-
quired at the conclusion of the war for the reg |
ul4tion Of its Trade and Finance had been set
tied, after all important Party Questions had
been disposed of the People began to bestow
more attention on the subject of Slavery and |
it was just at this time, 1920, that question |
arose which at once revealed the vast growth |
of the Slave Interest and the mischief that had |
resulted from the suspension Of the original
policy of the Government in relation to it, In |
the act to authorize the People of Missouri to |
form State Constitution, the non-slavehold- |
ing Representatives aroused to sense of their
delinquency, ATTEMPTED to regain for Freedom
what had been lost and al amendment was
carried, prohibiting the further introduction Of
slaves into the Territory, and providing for the
emancipation Of those already there, at the age
of twenty-five. The struggle that followed
showed that Slavery had gained an advantage it
was resolved not to part with. To restore peace
and save the Union, which some appeared to
think seriously menaced, what is called the
Missouri Compromise was agreed upon, not
without the most strenuous opposition on the
part of a majority of Northern members. This
,0Gs the first time that the policy of geogrdph-
zeal division between slave territory and free had
been proposed or assented to by the Govern
ment; and SO unpalntable was it even then to
the majority, that while the whole of the terri
tory north of SO deg. 80 min, exclusive of Mis-
souri,, was positively secured to Freedom, no
positive guarantee wss given to Slavery below
that line. Such guarantee, in express terms,
would have been rejected. Its federation be-
low SO deg. 80 min. was left to an implication.
The second instance in which this policy was
adopted, was in the case of Texas Northern
Democratic members being seduced into the
support of annexation by the provision that in
all States formed out of Texas, north of SO deg
80 min, Slavery or involuntary servitude should
be prohibited.
These are the only two instances in which
tho policy Of "a geographical line between slave
labor and free has been recognised and the
first instance as we have seen, was so lato as
the year 1920, thirty-three years after the
adoption of the Federal Constitution. Of course,
they prove nothing as to the original policy of
the Government, furnish no rule for its con-
duct in other cases, and, although valid and
operative, must be regarded as confined to the
Territories to which they IN terms applied, and
as settling only those controversies out of which
they sprung.
Such was the opinion of Congress in 1S4S,
when, in providing Territorial Government
for Oregon, with q clause in it prohibiting
Slavery, it refused to sanction the geographical
policy in relation to that Territory, and when,
in 1850 II refused tn sanction IL in rel.t;on to