Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-05-12

like enemies on the Geld Of battle. ]
do not wish to see such times again; and
therefore am agaInstreylylng them by
breaking up the settlement which qui-
eted them,
TnR TnRRR SLAVERY COMPROMISES.
The Missouri Compromise OF 1890
was the parlitionlng between the free
and slave States OF n great province,
taking the character Of perpetual
settlement. and classiug with the two
great compromises which gave us the
ordinances of July 18th. 1897. and the
Federal Constitution Of September
nth. of the same year. There are
three slavery compromises IN our his
tory. which connect themselves with
the foundation and the preservation of
this Union. First, the territorial par
tition ordinance of 1897. with its
clause for the recovery of fugitives
slaves; secondly. the cotemporaneous
constitutional recognition of slavery in
the States which choose to have il,
with the fugitive slave recovery clause
in the same instrument; thirdly, the
Missouri partition line of 1890, with the
same clause annexed. for the recovery
Of fugitive slaaes. Al three Of these
compromises are part and parcel of the
same policy, and neither oIthem coul d
have been formed without the other.
nor either of them withoutthe fugitive
slave recovery clause incorporated in
it. The anIi-slavery clause in the
ordinance of 1893 could not have been
adopted (as was proved BY It's three
years rejection. without the flu
gitive slave recovery clause added to
il.
The constitution could not have been
formed without its recognition of sla-
very in the States which chose it. and
the guaranty of the right to recover
slaves fleeing into the free States
The Missouri compromise could not
have been settled without partition
OF Louisiana between free and slave
soil; and that partition could not have
been made without the addition Of the
same clause. Thus. all three com
promises are settlements of existing
questions, and intended 70 be perpet.
ual. They are all three ofequal mora
validity. The constitutional compro.
mise is guarded by ahighrr obligation
in consequence OF It's Incorporation in
that instrument; but il in no ways
differs from the other two in the
circumstances which induced it. oi
the consequences which would aow
from It's abrogation. A proposition tc
destroy the slavery compromises in
the Constitution, would be an open
proposition, to break up the Union
the attempt to abro:ate the compromi-
ses IN The Constitution, would be m
open proposition. to break up the
Union; the attempt to abrogatc the
compromises OF 1881 and 1890 would
be virtual attempts to destroy the har-
mony OF the Union and prepare it for
dissolution by destroying the conf,
dence and affection in which il is foun.
ded.
The Missouri Compromise of 1926
is continuation of the ordinance o
i787--its extension to the since acqui'
red territory west of the Mississippi
and no way differing from it either in
principle or detail. The ordinance o
1887 divided the then territory of tho
United States about equally between
the free and slave States. The Mis-
souri, Compromise line did the same by
the additional territory of the United
States as it stood in 1920, and in botl
cases it was done by act of Congress
and was the settlement of a difficulty
which was 10 last forever. | considel
them both. with their fugitive slav,
recovery clauses, and the similar CLAUSE
in the constitution, as part and parce
of the same Observation-Disclosures
articles in the same general settle
ment.
The antislavery clause in the ord
nance of 1897 could not have been pu
in as was'proved by its three years
rejection) without the fugitive slav,
recovery clause added to it. The Con
stitution could not have been formed
without the recognition Of slavery il
the states which chose it. and the righ
of recovering slaves fleeing TO the fre'
States. The Missouri controvers,
could not have been settled except b.
the prohibition of slavery in the uppe
half OF the territory OF louisiana, AM
that prohibition could not have beer
obtained without the right to recove
fugitive slaves from the part made free
Thus the the three measures are one
and the ordinance of 1897 father L
the other two. 1t led to the adoption
of the fugitive slave clause in the Con
stitution. and We may say to the form
alton OF the constitution itself. whicl
could not have been adopted withou
that clause and the recongnition G
slave properly in which it was founded
This vital fact results of itself fror
the history OF the case. In March. {
the year 1884. the Virginia delegatio
in the then Congress of the Confeder
alton, headed by Mr.. Jefferson an
Mr. Monroe. conveyed the Northwes
tern territory to the thirteen Unite
States. In the month of April ensu
ing. the organizing mind Of Mr.. JeffeI
son. always bent upon systems an
administrations. brought in an ordir
ance for the government ofthe terrltor
so conveyed. with the anti.slaver
clause as part of it. to take effect i
the year 1900; but without claus
ior the recovery oil fugitive slaves
For want of this provision the ant
slavery clause WAS opposed by III