Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-05


part, by accusing its opponents Of like breach
OF faith in subsequent organizations OF newly ac-
quired territory.
II is not my purpose TO follow gentlemen in
their pettiogging objections 10 the above arrange
ment as q compact. II will suffice 10 say, that il
they could convict their opponents of the perlidy
laid TO their charge, (Which they cannot,) still
their conviction would not acquit the advocates
OF this BILL of deliberate violation of the faith
of their fathers. But sir, on this question of the
force and efficacy Of these Slavery compaeis and
adjustments, strange as the avowal may seem, my
judgment and my sympathy are with the South.
Those compacts and adjustments, by the Consti-
tuition of the United States, are utterly null and
void, for lack OF the semblance or shadow of
power conferred on Congress TO establish recog-
Mise, or guaranty Slavery under any circum-
stances whatever. But by the moral constitution
OF the universe, all compacts to plumber, or to
connive at the plumber and spoil of our fellow
men, our equals before our Common Father Of the
great patrimony of life, liberty, and happiness,
which he has given in common to all his chill
dren, are doubly void, being both mpous and
immoral. AS simple act of Congress, the re-
strction Of Slavery in these Territories was both
constitutional and just; and the Representative
from the free States, who shall, by any act of
omission or commission, impair in one iota the
strength or vigor of that act, will deserve 10 be
coffled with gang of imbruted slaves, driven to
| the far South, and taught under plantation dis
cipline, not to huckster and jockey with other
mems liberties, until he shall have learned by u
| Slaves experience, tile value Of his own.
| But, further, by the purchase of the Louisiana
| Territory and its consequent passing under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government,
the Slavery then existing in that Territory was
ipso tacto abolished. For the Slavery restriction
lists therefore, to agree to the continuance OF the
system in Missouri, Arkansas, and what is now
the State Of Louisiana, in consideration of its re-
striction in what now called Kansas and Ne
braska, was an attempt to purchase the freedom
of what was already free, by the enslavement of
those who were also equally free. As COM
pact, therefore, the Missouri compromise was inn
moral, unconstitutional and utterly void; and
the wonder to me is, that gentlemen from the free
States, should now seek TO avail themselves of
this currupt and humiliating concession as the
foundation of their opposition to this iniquitons
bill. For myself sir, (and | speak for myself
alone,) | would as soon bring suit before
court of justice against thief for dividend of
stolen goods, us insist on anything granted to me
in consideration of a concession on my part, at
once cowardly, inhumane, and unjust No, sir
would ask nothing on the ground Of that igno-
minious Missouri compromise--that first and fatal
surrender of the principles and honor of the free
States to the Unsuitable coverings of the fell spirit
of Slavery propagandism-tha pioneer to this
last infamous project, but only the last, because
Congress cannot at the same time, sin both in the
present and in the future.
desire, Mr. Chairman, to be distinctly under
stood, in what say on the validity of this Mis-
souri, compromise, and therefore will endeavor
to restate my position. 1t is this. The restric-
ton of Slavery ADORE the line of 500 30/ north lat
itude by the eighth section of the act of Congress
of March 6, 1920, was and is constitutional, and
therefore, as an act of Congress, obligatory until
repcaled but it acquired no additional force or
efficacy, by reason of any congressional assent,
expressed or implied, to the existence of Slavery
JeioW that line. Again, suppose Congress should
organize two Territories within the present limits
of Utah, and in one should prohibit polygamy
and as consideration, compact, or compromise
for this, should not dsallow it in the other; the
prohibition would be valid but would acquire no
additional sanctity by reason Of such compromise.
One further illustration on this point. Suppose
Southern gentlemen, unable toprocure from Mary
land and Virginia, slaves to supply the New Or
leans market, should demand q repeal of the acts
of Congress prohibiting the African slave trade;
and should propose to extend the Missouri slave
restriction to New Mexico and Congress should
thereupon, reopen the foreign slave trade, and at
the same time, exclude Slavery from New Mexi-
CO; this would be a compromise, identical in
principle with the Missouri compromise; and yet,
would be valid; but trust there is no Represent
alive on this floor from the free States, who
would demand its observance on the ground of
concession so infamous and atrocious as the re-
opening of the piratical slave trade. Ii will he
obvious from these Illustrations that the principle
of these compromises, is wholly indefensible, ut
.terly rotten; and that sooner or later, they must
all perish in their own corruption. No con-
tract between private persons in any civilized
,tlx. hasa cash fIar
would be tolerated for one moment in court of
justice and Interstate or intersectional com
pacts thus condemned by the moral sense Of
mankind, cannot in the nature of things be obi
gatory
But, Mr.. Chairman, have we of the free States,
any reason 10 expect that the shareholders will
recognise the obligation of those compromises,
whenever the interests of Slavery may, in their
Judgment, demand their yiolation2 JUSTICE sir,
or the notion that some things may of RIGHT be-
long TO individuals; and that things which be-
long TO the individual cannot be rightfuy taken
from him without his consent, is Of itself alone,
the sole ground Of the inviolability Of compacts
and compromises IA mans right 10 himself is of
course the highest and most sacred of all his
rights--consequently to deprive a human being
Of selEownership, and TO subject him against his
WILL TO the property ownership of aRother, is the
highest act of injustice, short of wilful murder,
llHI Hliill ptIpctIttt upOu MS ItliON. Every
human being of mature years, is under the high
est and most solemn compromise or compact with
every other, that he VH not invade this sacred right
of seif-o,onershp. The Shareholder is, therefore,
the voator of this deepest seated foundation of
human rights He breaks the great compact"
on which hangs the very existence of distributye
justice and social order.
How then can the stakeholder be expected to
abide 10y "compacts and compromises when
such obedience comes in confictwith his slave
holding usurpaton; that great notification Of
Gods supremacy, and man subsection to the
moral law With the stakeholder, power and
right in all things conducting to mastery over his
slave, are convertible terms and he applies in
exorably, this odious definition 10 all "compro-
misses and compacts," with whomsoever made,
the purpose Of which is, 10 exclude Slavery from
any State or Territory Of the Union. This inn
mutabe purpose of the shareholders, developed
from the earliest history Of the Government under