Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-03-23

marking line through that tesedtory, and saving I
that south of that hoe Slavery may exist, and
north of il there shall be no Slavery In this
view oft, the last thing that Mr.. Jelfors"u would
do would be to adhere to it, until Stay ~ had !
secured all the advantages it could derive ,ruas It,
and then repeal it to give Slavery further
chance. And yet the use yea make Of Mr.. JEFF
ferson's opinions, is calculated to place MIN in
that false pnstioa, and tie lead mea, whovenerate
his name and principles, to sanction fraud which
Mr. jefferson would have denounced with pen
of fire.
But you argue, Mr. Edasor, that the principle
upon which the Missouri Compromise rests is
unsound And you GO on to say that it is g fool
ish," -" idle, :" " mischierous -
- To attempt tie decide between light and
wrong by 81 imaginary geographical line 10
say that murder is marder en- ono side, aud MUIR
der is not murder en the ether 10 say that
arson, theft PiqEcy, Highway robbery shall be
local on one side of hair line, and Illegal on the
other! 10 say that violence, rape, adultery. are
lust and proper asd Haay be permitted as con III
Give to geod rnersls and in accordance with the
doctrines Of christianity on one side # chalk
| line and shall ret be permitted as not being con-
kNcivc to good mora and in accordance with
kaoctrines of christianity on the other side -
Iegaliae countenance and estibl'sa, slavery Oh
lss, eight, and to outlaw and 1enounce 1t
ssE yawrong'"
l6nssay is true, what has that to DO
Iader discussion The question
missouri rompromis. be abolished,
16e I!eslablisacd between Slavery and
hbe hlotted out, and no restrictoa,be i'm
III pom the extension OF Slavery over 'ha1
!s.s. Soppos be admitted that n would be
wrong to establish by legislation a line, and pro
vide that on one side Of it 'enurder, arson, t@eff,
pirccy, hig!..oay roJJcry," and" Slacery might
exist. and that on the other they should al be
prohibited, wherein would the wroag consist
: Wo,.!i it not consstfa legalizing these outrag 81
:, oul iI,hese fwany wrong in prohibiting them
Ei7sgst that such Legislation as that had
ttr Sorted to, and all those crimes had become
Established, and i" sanctioned aad sancti6ed," on
z odsonth side of the li@ss would it be right to
ba6blsh Che line that hsmmed them in and with
out prohibiting them, open territory sufficient
for an empire, north of the line, to their free
cess. and say to them, enter and possess the land!
If it would, your argument would have some APP
pication and some force. If it would not, then
your 'ogic and rhetoric are both equally false.
You defend this measure, also, Mr.. Editor, or
\ the ground that the Compromise of 1850 super
yedcd that of 1920. For proof of this, you reie
the following clanse in The acts creating terri
ii'ia governments for Utah and New Mexico;
:" And when the said territory, or any portion
the same, shall be admitted as State it shall
received into the Union ,cith or ,uHhout Stare
b as their constitutions may prescribe at the TINT
Ii thslr admission
" You then 60 on to say -
i "It was upon this amendment that DAME
INV ebster made his speech The amendment wa
n;.!opted and became a part of the compromise o
4 1850 Now, if that adjustment did not super
F"' sede the compromise of 1920, then there is III
|! meaning in words, and the congress and tn
0 country in 1850 did not know what they wer
/ about The amendment, as we have quoted II
was understood at the time to supersedc all othe
compromise of the Slavery question. 1t was
understood at Baltimore, by both National Ton
ventons, and WAS endorsed by the people, in tn
almost unanimous election of Gen. Pierce to tn
! Presidency
What do you mean when you say that tn
provision in the Utah and New Mexico Bill
"ouoted above, superseded the compromise
1901" DO you mean that it repeated the Mi'
souri, Compromised If so, where are the repea
ing words If SO, why repeal it over again nov
in the Nebraska Bill If you simply mean tn;
u that provision is inconsistent with the Nilsson
Compromise, then, ask what of it, Becals
] one measure is not consistent with others, do,
n that require that all the previous mea ures shou
n be repealed If 50, the Compton, So of 49,
requires the repeal of the Ordinance of 1887,
fAvorite Ordinance with you heretofore. 1t /
qures the repeal of the Slavery restriction
Oregon md W ashington Territories! DO y.
hold to this Iapprelend not. But you say We
boldly
: .sNow ifthat adjustment did not supersede Il
n there is no meaning in words, and Congress Al
the country in 1850 did not know what they we
about"
And you 90 s far as to say -
"That the amendment Ito the Utah and Nc
Mrxico Bs) ,oas understood at the time to S
peysede all other compromises Of the Slape
question: II ,oas so understood at Baltimore
Iotb Nnt;on nj C0nrPnti0us - dc
l Now what are the facts1 One of the Coz
| N aro,nise acs-the very act from which you quo
contains proyiso that nothing contained in
|Sas lisppi-- ,anstrued "to impair or quality A
tanned in the third article ofthe seco
so,Nss: joint resolution annexing Texas
IheFEy.fa,es1' either as regards the numt
off sA.s. . Eat may be formed out of it, OR OF
rRwlsE." The third article of the second 81
ton of the join, resolution for annexng Texas
the United S ates,' declares that -
"In such State or States as shall be form
out of said territory, north Of the Missouri Co
.-.... nroo,tse Hne, SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SER
T0DE, ercept for crime, sHall be prohibited"
J. Here the Compromise of 1850 expressly sa
ms saass the Compromise Of 1920, and acknowled!
w.. 'lng force! And yet you say that the I
!, ndersiood, at the time, to supersede
ere is another proof on this point \
.chinsou; the present Democratic President
Senate, helped pass the Compromise acts
= 1850. At the last session of Congress he M
speech on Nebraska Bill which did not c
tain any provision superseding the Missouri CO