The Ohio star. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1830-1854, 1854-03-08


outside of the State limits. Departure from the
true Interpretation OF the Constitution has created
the necessity for more positive prohibition.
Ny general view upon this subject is simply
this: Slavery is the subsection of one man TO the
absolute disposal of snoiher man. by force. Mas
ter and slave. according to the principles of the
Declaration of Independence. and by the law of
nature, are alike men. endowed by their Creator
with equal rights. Sir, Mr.. Pinkney was right,
when. in the Maryland House of Delegates, he
exclaimed, 81 By the eternal principles of Justice,
no man in the State has right to hold bis sllve
for single hour Slavery, then, exists nowhere
it must be through the sanction and support of
municipal or State legislation.
Upon this state of things the Constitution acts.
1t recognises all men as persons. 1t confers no
power, but, on the contrary, expressly denies all
power to the Government of its creation to estab-
lish or continue Slavery. Congress has no more
power. under the Constitution, to make slave
than to make king; no more power to establish
Slavery than to establish the Inquisition.
At the same time. the Constitution confers no
power on Congress, but. on the contrary, denies
az lO"CI " WIN luteFDdl policy OF
any State. sanctioned and established by its own
Constitution and its legislation, in respect to
to the personal relations of it's iDhabitants. The
States, under the Constitution are absolutely free
from all interferepce by Congress in thai respect
except, perhaps, in the case of war or insurrec
ton; and may legislate as they please within the
limits of their own Constitutions. They may
allow Slavery, if they please, just as they may
license oiher wrongs. Bat Stare laws, by which
Slavery lie allowed and regulated, can operate only
within the limits of the Stale, and can have no
extra territorial effect. ast - q
Sir, could quote the opiBiors of Southern
judges ad fnitunl. in support of the doctrine that
Slavery is against natural right, absolutely deren
dent for its existence continuance upon the
State legislation. l might quote the scornful re-
jection by Randolph of all aid from the General
Government to the Institution of Slavery within
the States. I might quote the decision of lie
ruled afterwards. i know sir. in the Court of AID
peals-that Slavery was against juetiee that the
presumption of freedom must be allowed in favor
of every alleged slave suing for Liberty. and thai
The onus of proving the contrary rested upon the
master. Il.
! think, sir, l have now shown that the Ord-
nance of 1857, and the Constitution of the United
States, were absolutely 10 harmony one with the
her; and that if ihe Ordinance had ne, er been
adopted, the Constitution itself, properly inter
preted and adminis tered. " ouid have excluded
Slavery from all newly-acqured territory But
sir, whatever opinion may be entertained in re-
spect to the Interpretation of the Constitution
which defend, thing is absolutely indisput-
able, and that is, that it the original policy Of
the country to. exclude Slavery from oil national
Territory. j. -sss-.s-.g g..s..si ,-i5 III
That policy was never depa led from until Ike
year 1890, when Congress accepted the cession OF
what is now Tennessee. from North Carolina.
But did the acceptance of that cession Indicate any
Slavery and Freedom Why, sir, on-ihe con-
trary, the State Ct North Carolina, aware that in
the absence of any sfpuatioc to the contrary, Sa-
very would be prohibited in the ceded territory, in
pursuance of the established policy of the Govern
ment, introduced into her deed of cession ex-
press provision that the anti-savery article of the
Ordinance of 1887 should not be applied TO it. 1t
may be said that Congress should have refused to
accept tie cession. / ngree in that opinion. But
Slavery already existed in that district part o.
the State of North Carolina, and it was probably
thought unreasonable to deny The wish of the State
for its continuance. tsaz
| The same motives decided the action of Georgia
in making her cesson of the territory between her
western limits and the Mississippi, and the action
of Congress accepting it. The acceptance of both
of these cessods, as well as the adoption and re-
enactment by Congress of the slave laws of Mary
land for the District of Columbia were departures
from original policy but they indicated no purpose
to establish any geographical line. They were
the result of the gradually Increasing Indifference
| to the claims of Freedom, plainly perceivHble in
the history of The country after the adoption of the
Constitution. Luther Martin had complained in
/ 1898" when our own liberties were at stake, we
| warmly felt for the common rights of man. The
danger being thought to be passed which threat
ened ourselves, we are daily growing more and
more insensble to those rights.'' 1t was this
| growing nsensibiy which led to these departures
from original policy. Afterwards, in 1903, Louis
lana was acquired from France. Did we then
hasten to establish geographical line2 No. sir.
i
Georgia and North Carolina, Congress refrained
from applying the policy of 1857; Congress did
not interfere with existing Slavery; Congress
contented itself with enactments prohibiting, abso-
lutely, the Introduction of slaves from beyond the
| limits of the United States and also prohibiting
their introduction from Gny of the States, except
by bona Jfde owners, actually removing to Louis
lana for settlement. When Louisiana was ad-
nlitted into the Union, in 1912, restriction was
imposed upon her in respectto Slavery. At this
time, there were slaves all along up the west bank
of the Mississippi as far St. Louis, and per-
haps even above.
/ 10 1918 Missouri applied for admission into the
Union. The free States then awoke to the dan
ger of the total overthrow of the original policy of
the country. They saw that no State had taken
measures for the abolition of Slavery since the