The daily union., 1854-02-10
From ths Salem tMass-) Peoples Advocate.
slavery Agitatt0n.-Nebras

~
under the tenth article OF the constitution, having been
established beyond doubt by various acts OF Congress
admitting new States into the UnIon and this principle
having been brought before the country BY the
bill proposing 10 establish territorial governments for Ne
braska and Kansas, deem proper say something al
this time with regard 10 the character OF the opposition
which has been brought against this principle. and
against The constitution, whenever the question has
arisen. and also 10 refer 10 those who have given il
consistent support II is not necessary TO go further
back han 1920, when the question OF ''restc-
tion" OF slavery sde and OF "non intervention"
on the othera question whose settlement while il in
voved compromise still recognised, to certain ex
tent the State rights principle OF which have spoken.
AT that time the federal party, led by Rufus King OF
New York, and MIR. Oils, OF Massachusetts,, main
tanned the ground OF uAeguvoeal restriction without
reservation and regardless OF rights consequences.
Mr. King claimed. in his speech in the United States
Senate in favor OF restriction and against The Compromise
OF 1890, that The admission OF State into the Union
conferred upon It's citizens only the rights denomnaied
ederal and these common to the citizens of all
the States, as well those in which slavery is pro-
hbiled Of those in which is allowed, it follows thai
the prohibition OF slavery will not impair the federal
rights OF its citizens and he also conended with gen.
une Hartfordconvenon federalism, that the general
gouernaeM must be strengthened ,ott new pouers to put
doOn The Institution Mr.. Otis followed in the same de-
strucve and anti democratic doctrine The federal party
was called upon 10 oppose every Of compromise
which involved recognition OF the rights Of the States
The Missouri Compromise, which they profess to
reverence so much. then their arch enemy. Fol-
lowing the lead OF King and O,is in the Senate Mr. Mel
len, OF pressed the doctrine OF restriction
in the House. Mr. Lowrie, of Pennsylvania, with a
rather premature development OF the spirit of Garsonan-
ism, declared he would choose the dissolution OF the
Union to the extension of slavery let the result be what
it might. and let the rights of the States be whatever
they may Nearly the whole federal party in Congress
took this same ground
Out of Congress the abolition excitement famed
into flame by all the leaders of the federal party In
Philadelphia, Horace Bnney presided at meeting where
resolves passed denouncing all who supported the
Compromise, and opposing the admission OF any State
into the Union with power TO establish tolerate slave
ry within its jurisdiction. In Boston, James t. Austin.
Josiah Quincy, Benjamin Pickman, William Eusts,
George Blake, and others, called upon the people
and the federal party in Congress 10 oppose the meas
ure by every means their power set the no-bnding
open resistance to the constitution and the lawsat the
time heapng all their denunciaons upon the head
of the venerable historian of Massachusetts, Alden Brad
ford who dared TO suggest TO the meeting that, in his
opinion, Congress bad no power TO prohibit slavery as
State institution The legislature OF Massachusetts fol-
lowed in the course. Reused to pitch of ex-
ireme violence in Connecticut, under the immediate
influence OF Hartford conven,ionsm, this dsorgan-
izng party villi6ed abused, and burnt in efhgy Mr..
Lawrence, senator from that State, who voted for
the Compromise bill. Throughout the North they ex.
hibed their usual devotion TO sectional feelings and
factions, and resisted every attempt TO dispose OF ques
ton, which alarming TO every lover OF his country
in accordance with the designs OF the Union spirit o
and The letter Of the constitution The Missouri
Compromise passed 10 spite OF this party; and propose
to show, in a future article, who forward at that
time. and in spite OF lberaly and patriotism endeavor-
ed calm the passions OF the community and protect the
rights OF The people and the States by the adoption o
principles 10 which alone rests the safety OF every State
and every interest, be it northern southern.
How was ii with the Compromise OF 1850 No man
can have forgotten the Of wbg Indignation which
was poured upon The heads OF democrats who sustained
those measures The echoes OF the voice OF Seward and
Mann, and Chase, and Giddngs. and Sumner and Fred
Douglass hardly yet slenlhe sound Of their denun
citation is still in the OF the people The ink is hard
ly YET dry on their resolutions and wing addresses agans
the measures And while Cass, and Douglas, and Pierce
and Atbeuon, and Webster whose genius impellee
TO rebel once against whg narrowness and corup
uon were sustaining the constitution this cry OF aboli
uonsm with all its distortions and msrepresen,
ations and found willing advocates in the federal whig
who adhered TO The principles OF their progenors OF s20
These facts have passed into history. No denie
them. And II any disposed TO do so, let him look
has arisen again. There is no principle too monstrou.
no statement too unfounded, supply means for the
opposition to the Nebraska bill and Judge Douga
From The highest TO the lowest. "ue dogs and all
Join in the chorus Not content with attacking the prn
cipes Of the BILL founded as they upon the law O
1880. which the wings themselves proposed to adopt
their Baltimore Convention, they pretend pous regar
for those very which the lime OF their ador
ton they opposed and denounced This very Ms.ou
Compromise which now receives so much of their re
gious devotion, is declared TO have destroyed ever
northern man who voted Tor it, The New Yor
Tribune presents, with an utter misrepresentation
OF history. the fate OF John Holmes OF Maine
Henry Shaw OF Massachusetts,, Mr. Sions of New
York, Mr. Parrot of New Hampshire, northern men
as a warning 10 those who would support the bill
now offered for Nebraska 1t would make belev