Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-03-02
MAINTAIN PLIGHTED FAITH.
SPEECH OF SALMON p. CHASE


lCoNCLrDED.
Ii the Senator is wrong, as have shown he
Is, IN respect to the corporation of all the terri
tory cut off from Texas into New Mexico, then
he is also wrong i'll bis declaration that the COM
promise act of 1850 does not preserve and reas.
assert the principle of the Missouri prohibition
Ihe hlcts are few and simple, and the infer
ehco from them obyions and irresistible.
Inc third article of the Joint resolution for
tho annexation Of Texas reads thus
New States, of convenient size, not exceed
ing four in number, in addition 10 said State of
texas, having sufficient population, may here
after, by the consent Of said State, be formed
out OF the Territory thereof, which shall be On. j..
Titled to admission under the provisions of the
FEDERAL Constitution. And such States as may
W Formed out of that portion OF said Tarritorv
| lying south Of 36 deg. 80 min. north latitude,
commonly known as the Missouri comnromse
line, shall be admitted into the Union. with or
without slavery, as the people of each State ask
ing admission may desire And in such State
Or States as shall be formed out of said Terrific
ry north OF said Missouri compromise line, slave
ry or Involuntary serytud9 Except for crimc)
shall be prohibited -
Here is an express stipulation that slavery
shall be prohibited in any State formed ont
OF the Territory of Texas north of 3G deg. 80
lnin. This was valuable stipulation for free
dom, IN cas> the claim of Texas was valid one
to the whole territory within her boundaries.
ihe Senate from Virginia regarded that claim
as yalld and 1t was upon his motion that the
lroFlsO which now proceed to quote was ncor-
porated into the Tezus boundary bill
49, Protded, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed TO impair or qualify ANY THING
con aimed III the third article of the second sec.
ton OF the Joint resolution for an1exiny Texas to
The United States, approved March l., lS45, ei.
ther as regards the number of States that NAV
hereafter be formed out of the State of rexa+,
OR OTHERWISE
Here was compact between two States. So
far as the parties were competent to enter into
it, 1t was obligatory and permanent. That COM
pact covered all the territory rightfully within
the limits Of Texas, until rcscinded. 1t could
make no difference fa portion of TINT territory
saoad BE- subsequently relinquished to the Uni
ted States. That would not disturb the effect of
the compact. Bat this matter was not left to in
ference or conjecture. AT the very moment Of
REIMBURSEMENT, the United States and Texas, bv
agreeing to the proyiso have quoted, saved the
compact, and continued it in full force in all it's
provisions.
Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, if the
two tracts OF country of which have spoken
were within the rightful claim of Texas, the
compact applied to them, and the prohibition
of slavery i'll the states to be created out of them
is still in force. And it is, perhaps, at this day
the only prohibition which is in force there for
the Missouri prohibition, enacted in 1920, may
be regarded as restricted to the limits of Louis
lana acquisition as defined by the treaty with
Spain, which was concluded in that year.
! But the Souator from Illinois SAYS that the
prohibition in the annexation resolu ton was of
no practical effect, except to preserve the princ-
pie OF the Missouri compromise. That was true,
if Texas never had any just calm north OF So
deg. 80 min. Upon that supposition, also, the
Mason proyiso had no effect as preserving and
rcaHirming an actual prohibition north Of, 36
deg. 30 min, but still served to preserve the
principle. 1t is impossible 10 maininil, as the
Senator does, that the third article OF the origi-
ual joint resolution, though Of no practical ci-
feet, preserved the principle of tie Missouri
compromise and yet deny that the Mason pro-
yiso, which reafirms and reestablishcs, as part
of u new compact, every provision of that third
article preserves that principle. If the princi-
pie was preserved by one, 1t must be by che other
have now think, demonstrated that the
Senator from Illinois was clearly wrong in as
serting the incorporation Of all the territory cut
off from Texas into New Mexico; and Justly as
clearly wrong in denying the reafirmance of the
principle of the Missouri compromise by one OF
those very compromise acts which, as he would
have us say, superseded it. Certainly the Sell-
ate, when it adopted the Mason proviso, without
a division, and the House, when it agreed to the
bill of which it was part, must have intended
to keep alive and affirm every provision of the
third article of the annexation resolution. One
OF these provisions prohibited slavery north of
80 deg. so min. That provision preserved the
principle Of the Missouri compromise. The pro-
1iso, taken in connection with that provision,
makes it clear beyond all question that the COM
promise acts preserved that principle, and re-
iected the consequence which it is now sought
to force upon them.
! submit to the Senate if have not complete
ly vindicated this part of the appeal against the
speech of the Senator! The errors, mistakes,
misrepresentation are all his own. None are
found in the appeal.
The third specification of the Senator charges
the signers of the appeal with misrepresentation
of the oginal policy of the country in respect to
slavery. The Senator says:
1.-The argument of this manifesto is predica-
ted upon the assumption that the policy of the
fathers of the Republic was to prohibit slavery
in all the Territories ceded by the old States to
the Union, and made United States territory for
the purpose Of being organized into new States
take issue upon that statement"
The Senator then proceeds to attempt to show
that the original policy of the country was one
of indiferentism between slavery and freedom
and that, in pursuance of it, geographical line
was established reaching from the eastern to the
western limit of the original States-that is to
say, to the Mississippi river. Sir, if anything
is susceptible of absolute historical demonstra-
ton, think it is the proposition that the foun-
ders of the Republic never contemplated any ex-
tension of slavery Let US for few moments
retrace the past.
What was the general sentiment of the coun-
try when the Declaration of Independence was
promulgated, invoke jefferson as witness
Let him speak to us from his grave, in the Ian
guage of his memorable exposition of the rights
of British America, laid before the Virginia
convention, in August, IVA. These are his
words
"The abolition of domestic slavery is the
greatest object of desire in these colonies, where
it was unhappily introduced in their infant
state. ="
In the spirit which animated Jefferson, the
First Congress-the old Congress of l774-among
their first acts, entered into solemn covenant
against the slave traffic.
In l776, the Declaration of Independence,
drafted by Jefferson, announced no such low
and narrow principles as seem to be in fashion
now. That immortal document asserted no right
of the strong to oppress the weak, of the ma pr-
ity to enslavc the minority. 1t promulgated the
sublime creed Of human rights. 1t declared that
ALI MEN are created equal, and endowed by their
Creator with inalienable rights to life and lib.
erty.
The first acquisition of territory was made by
the United States three years before the adop
tion Of the Constitution. just after the coun,
| tr,r hoA o,,opnaJ ll,o r. :.