Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-03-03

10 tncy STOP inefe. Ors on ttt Souhails ""
they encircle the earth, and meeting us a.
gain on the Atlantic coast, embrace the ISL
ands Of Iceland and Greenland, and exhaust
themselves on the barren coasts Of Green
land and Labrador?
Sir, if the Missouri Compromise neither
in its spirit nor by its letter extended the
line Of 30 degs. 80 min. beyond the then con-
fines Of Louisiana, or beyond the then con-
fines of the United States, for the terms are
equivalent, then it was no violation OF the
Missouri Compromise in ls4o to refuse to
extend it to the subsequently acquired pos
sessions of Texas, New Mexico, aud CALI
fornia.
But suppose we did refuse to extend 1t:
how did that refusal work forfeiture OF our
vested rights under il? ] desire TO know
that
Again: IL this forfeiture Of Nebraska oc-
CURED in iS4e, as the Senator charges, how
does il happen that he not only failed IN
1850, when the parties were in court here,
adjusting their mutual claims, to demand
Judgment against the free States, but on the
contrary, even urged that the same old hlls.
souri, Compromise line, yet held valid and
sacred, should be extended through TO the
Pacific Ocean?
come now to the chief ground Of the de-
tense of this extraordinary measure, when
is, that it abolshes a geographical line oil di-
vision between the proper fields OF Tree Ia
Dor and slave labor. and refers the claim be-
tween them to the people of the territories.
Even if this great change Of policy were ac-
tually wise and necessary, have shown that
il is not necessary TO make it now, IN regard
to the Territory of Nebraska. If It would
be lust elsewhere, it would be unjust IN re-
gard to Nebraska, simply because, for ample
and adequate equivalents, fully received, you
| have contracted IN effect not to abolish that
| line thoro.
I but why is this change &c policy wise or
necessary 1t must be because either that
the extension of Slavery is no evil, or because
you have not the power to prevent 1t at all,
or because the maintenance of gcographi-
cal line is no longer practicable.
know that the opinion is sometimes ad-
vanced, here and elsewhere, that the extern
sion of slavery, abstractly considered, Is not
an evil; but our laws prohibiting the Airi-
can Slave Trade are still standing on the
Statuie-book, and express the contrary ludg-
mcnt of the American people. pass ON,
therefore, from that point.
\, Sir, do not like, more than others, geo
graphical line between Freedom and Slave
nv. But II is because | would have, II 1t
were possible, all our Territory free. Since
that cannot be, line of division is indlspen
sable and any line is a geographical line.
The honorable and very acute Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Badger has wooed us
most persuasiyely to waive our own oblec-
tons to the new principle as il is called OF
! ...t. ne that the
Shareholder can only use slave labor whore
the soils aud climates favor the culture OF
tobacco. cotton, rice and sugar. None OF
them find these congonial soils or climates at
the sources of the Mississippi or IN the val
! lev of the Rocky Mountains. Why then
does he want to remove the inhibition there
| But again that honorable Senator rcprodn-
ces a pleasing fiction of the character OF
Slavery from the Jewish history and asks
why not allow the modern patriarchs to &c
into new regions with their slaves as then
ancient prototypes did to make them more
comfortable and happy? and he tells us at
the same time that this indulgence will not
increase the slaves. lsreply by asking, first,
whether Slavery has gained or lost strength
by the diffusion of il over a lirger surface
than it formerly covered? VIII the Senator
answer that ? Secondly, quite admire the
simplicity of the patriarcha times but they
nevertheless exhibited some peculiar insttu-
tons quite incongruous with modern repub
icanisln, not TO say Christianity, namely
that of u latitude of construction of the
marriage contract, which has been carried b,
one class Of so called patriarchs into Utah
Certainly no one would desire to extend thai
peculiar institution into Nebraska. Thirdly
Shareholders have also a peculiar institution
which makes them political patriarchs-they
make five of their slaves as equal tC
three freemen in forming the basis OF feder
al representation. II these patrlarchs insis,
upon carrying their institutions into new re-
| gions north Of 36 deg. 10 min. respectful
ly submit that they ought TO reassune the
nodesty oftheir Jewish predecessors and re
hnquish this political feature of the system
they thus seek to extend. Will they do
that?
Some Senators have revived the argument
that the Missouri Compromise was unconsti
tutional. But it is one of the pecullarItles
of compromises. that constitutional obec
tons, like all others, are buried under then
by those who make and ratity them, for the
obvious reason that the parties at once waiy,
them, aud receive equivalents. Certainly
the slaveholdmg States, which waived thei
constitutional objections against the Com
promise of 1870, and accepted equivalent,
therefor, cannot be allowed to revive and OF
fer them now as reason for refusing to the
non .slaveholding states their rights unde
the COMPROMISE, without first restoring tht
equivalents which they received IN condl
ton OF surenderlng their constitutional oh
jections.
For arguments sake, however, let this re
ply be waved, and Jet us look at this Const
tu,ional objection. You say that the excln
sion of Slavery by the Missouri Compromis,
reches through and beyond the existence o
the region organized ms a territory, aud pro
hibits Slavery FOREVER, even IN the State,
to be organized ont OF such Territory, while
on The contrary. the Mates, when admitted
will be sovereign, and must hive exclusive
Jurisdiction over Slavery for themselves
Let this, too, be granted. But Congress, ac-
cording to the Constitution, 'inay ADMIT new
States" If Congress may admi., then Con
gress may also refuse to admn-that is ia
say, may reject new States The greater in
cudes the less therefore Congress may I'D
mt, on condition that the States shall ex
clude Slavery. II such condition shouc
be accepted, would it not be binding
1t is by no means necessary, on this oc-
casion, 10 follow the argument farther TO the
question, whether such condition is il
conflict with the constitutional provision
that the new Suites received shall be admit
ted on an equal footing with the Original
States, because, in this case, and al present
the question relates not to the admission Of
a State, but to the organization of Terrific