Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-05-01
price Two Cents

IefS ltSel1 TO De governed Oy auInoElCyb VI uHo-
gooned by its own hirelings. am man of
no bargains, but act openly with any man
that acts for the public good; and in this spirit
l offer the right hand of political friendship to
every member of this body that viii stand to-
gether to vindicate its privileges, protect its
respectability, and maintain it in the high
place for which it was intended-the master
branch Of the American government.
The question before us, is, to get rid Of the
Missouri compromise line and to lawyer
that is an easy question. That compromise is
in the form of a statute; and ore statute is
repealable by another. That short view is
enough for a lawyer. To statesman it is
something different; and refers the question
of its repeal, not to law books, but to reasons
of State policy-to the circumstances under
which it was enacted and the consequences
which are to flow from its abrogation. This
compromise Of 1920 is not mere statute, to
last for day; it was intended rperpetuity;
and SO declared itself. 1t is an enactment to
| settle a controversy-and did settle it--and
| cannot be abrogated without reviving that
controversy.
1t has given the country peace for above
thirty years how many years of disturbance
will its abrogation brings That is the states
| man S question; and without assuming to be
enough SO to consider the consequences of
breaking a settlement which paciied CONT
nent, / remember the Missouri controversy,
| and how it destroyed all social feeling, and all
! capacity for beneficial legislation and merged
| all political principle in an angry contest about
slavery-dividing the Union into two parts,
and drawing up the two halves into opposite
and confronting lines, like enemies on the
| field of battle. l do not wish to see such
times again; and, therefore, am against re-
viving them by breaking up the settlement
which quieted them.
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 was the
partitioning between the free and slave States,
of great province, taking the character of a
perpetual settlement; and CHASING with the
two great compromises which gave us the or
dinance of July ID, 1884, and the Federal
Constitution, of September IL, of the same
year. There are three slavery compromises
in our history, which connect themselves with
the foundation and the preservation of this
Union. First, the territorial partition ordi-
nance of 1887, with its clause for the recovery
of fugitive slaves secondly, the contemporary
eous constitutional recognition of slavery in
the States which chose to have it, with the
fugitive slave recovery clause in the same in
strument; thirdly, the Missouri partition line
of 1920, with the same clause annexed for
the recovery of fugitive slaves. All three of
these compromises are part and parcel Of the
same policy; and neither Of them could have
been formed without the other, nor either of
them without the fugitive slave recovery
clause incorporated in it. The anti-slavery
clause in the ordinance of 1887 could nothave
been adopted Gas was proved by its three
years rejection) without the fugitive slave re-
covery clause added to it; the Constitution
could not have been formed without its recog-
milton of slavery in the States which chose it,
and the guarantee of the right to recover slaves
ucr info +I,a fraa Gtotac. the Missouri com
troversy could not have been settled withouta
partition Of Louisiana between free and slave
soil; and that partition could not have been
made without the addition of the same clause
| for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Thus, all
| three compromises are settlements of existing
| questions, and intended to be perpetual. They
are all three Of equal moral validity. The
constitutional compromise is guarded by
| higher obligation in consequence OF its moor
poration in that instrument; but it no way
| differs from the other two in the circumstances
which induced it, the policy which guards it,
! or the consequences which would flow from
| its abrogation. A proposition to destroy the
| slavery compromises in the Constitution, would
be an open proposition to breakup the Union:
the attempt to abrogate the compromises of
1857 and 1920, would be virtual attempts to
destroy the harmony of the Union, and pre-
pare it for dissolution, by destroying the con-
tidence and affection in which it is founded.
The Missouri compromise of 1920 is con-
tinuation of the ordinance Of 17S7-its exten-
sion to the since acquired territory west of the
Mississippi, and no way differing from it either
in principle or detail. The ordinance of 1887
divided the then territory Of the United States
about equally between the free and slave
States; the Missouri compromise line did the
same by the additional territory of the United
States as it stood in 1920; and in both cases
it was done by act of Congress, and was the
settlement of difficulty which was to last
forever I consider them both, with their flu
gitive slave clauses, and the similar clause i'll
the Constitution, as part and parcel Of the
same observation-disclosures articles in the same
general settlement.
The ti-slavery clause in the ordinance of
1887, could not have been put in Gas was
proved by its three years rejecton) without
the fugitive slave recovery clause added to it.
The Constitution could not have been formed
without the recognition of slavery in the States
which chose it, and the right of recovering
slaves fleeing to the free States. The Missouri
controversy could not have been settled ex-
cept by the prohibition of slavery in the upper
half of the territory of Louisiana; and that
prohibition could not have been obtained with
out the right to recover fugitive slaves from
the part made free. Thus, the three measures
the other two. 1t led to the adoption Of the
fugitive slave clause in the Constitution, and
we may say, to the formation of the Constitu-
ton itself which could not have been adopt
ed without that clause, and the recognition of
slave property in which it was founded
This vital fact results of itself from the history
of the case. In March, of the year 1854, the
Virginia delegation in the then Congress of
the Confederation, headed by Mr.. Jefferson
and Mr.. Munroe, conveyed the northwestern
territory to the Thirteen United States
In the month Of April ensuing. the organic
ing mind Of Mr.. Jefferson, always bent upon
systems and administration, brought in an or
dinance for the government of the territory so
convened with the anti-slavery clause as
part Of it, to take effect in the year 1900 but
without clause for the recovery of fugitive
slaves. For want Of this provision, the anti
slavery clause was opposed by the slave-hold-
ing States, and rejected and the ordinance
was passed without it. In July, of the year
1887, the ordinance was remodelled, the anti
slavery clause, with the fugitive slave recovery
clause as they now stand, were inserted in it
and in that shape the ordinance had the unan-
imous vote of every State present in the
whole-and an equal number of slave and free
States present. Thus, it is clear that the anti
slavery clause in the ordinance Of 1887 could
not have passed without the fugitive slave re-
coyery clause annexed. They were insepara-
BILE in their birth, and must be so in their life;
| and those who love one must accept the other.
This was done in the month Of July, IN the