The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09

we may hereafter acquire. If this construe
ton be given, it makes that Compromise a fna
| adjustment. No other construction can moss;
bly, impart fnality to it. By any other con
struction, the question is to be reopened thu
moment you ratify new treaty acquiring ar
inch OF country from Mexico. By any other
construction, you reopen the issue every time
you make new Territorial Government. Bot
SIR, II you treat the Compromise Measures Of
1890 IN the light Of great principles, sufficient
70 remedy temporary evils, at tho same time
that they prescribe rules of action applicable
everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid
the agitation forever, if you observe good faith
to the provisions of these enactments, and the
principles established by them.
Mr. President, repeat that, so far as the
| question of Slavery is concerned, there is moth
ing in the bill under consideration which does
not carry out the principle of the Compromise
Measures of 1850, by leaving the people to do
as they please, subject only to the provisions of
the Constitution of the United States If that
principle is wrong, the bill is wrong. If that
principle is right the blu is right 1t is unne-
cessary to bubble about phraseology or words
it is not the mere words, the mere phraseology,
that our constituents wish TO judge By. They
wish to know the legal effect Of our lesgisla-
| ton
The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as
reported by the Committee on Territories, is
neither to legislate Slavery into these Terrific
ries not out of them, but to leave the people to
| do as they please under the provisions and
subject to the limitations of the Constitution of
the United States Why should not this prin-
ciple prevail? Why should any man, North
or South, object to it? | will especially ad-
dress the argument to my own section of coun-
try, and ask why should eny Northern man
object to this principle! If you will review
the history of the Slavery question in the Uni
ted States, you will see that all the great re-
suits in behalf of free institutions which have
been worked out have been accomplished by
the operation Of this principle, and by it alone
When these States were colonies Of Great
| Britain, every one of them was q slaveholding
province. When the Constitution of the Uni
ted States was formed, twelve out of the thir-
teen were slsveholding States. Since tina: time,
SIX of those States have become free How
has this been effected9 Was it by virtue of
abolition agitation in Congress- Was it in
obedience to the dictates Of the Federal Gov
ernment? Not at all but they have become
free States under the silent but sure and ire.
sistible working Of that great principle of self
government, which teaches every people to do
that which the interests OF themselves and
their posterity morally and pecuniarily may
require.
Under the operation Of this principle, New
Hampshire became free, while South Carolina
contin tn hold slaves; Connecticut abolish
ed Slavery while Georgia held on to il; Rhode
Island abandoned the institution, while Mary
land preserved it; New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, abolished slavery, while Virginia,
North Carolina, and Kentucky, retained it,
Did they do it at your biddingl Did they do
1t at the dictation of the Federal Government
Did they do 1t IN obedience to any of your Viii
mot PrOvisos or Ordinances of 'S7? Not st all
they did it by virtue Of their rights as freemen
under~the Constitution Of the United States
to establish and abolish such institutions as
they thought their own good required
Let me ask you where have you succeeded
IN excluding Slavery by an act of Congress
from one inch of American SOLE You may tell |
me that you did it in the Northwest Territory
by the Ordinance of 1887. | will show you by |
the history Of the country that you did not &C |
complsh any such thing You prohibited
Slavery there by law, but you did not exclude |
it in fact. Illinois was q part of the Northwest
Territory. With the exception of few French
and white settlements it was a vast wilderness, |
filled with hostile savages when the Ordinance |
OF 1877 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois |
was organized into a Territorial Government |
it established and protected Slavery, and main
tanned it in spite of your Ordinances and in de- |
fance of its express prohibition. 1t is curl |
Gus fact, that, 80 long Congress said the Ter
riiOry of lllions should not have Slavery. she
actually had it; and on the very day when you
withdrew your Congressional prohibition, the
people OF Illinois, of their own free will and &C
cord, provided for system of emancipation.
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Terrific
ry with your Ordinance or your Wilmot Pro-
viso, because the people there regarded it as an
invasion of their rights; they regarded it as an
usurpston on the part Of the Federal Govern
ment. They regarded it as violative Of the |
great principle of selfgovernment, and they |
determined that they would never submit even |
to have freedom, so long as you forced it upon
them.
Nor must it DO said that Slavery was ohci
ished in the Constitution Of .,, 80 xeensa nfyt-'
be admitted into The e .innois in order to
pIlincc M NJ boa, y, UnlOn rs state, IN COM |
- sa VI. P2fEe Ordinance Of 1887 for they
did no such thing. In the Constitution with |
which the people of Illinois were admitted into
the Union, they absolutely violated, disregard
ed, and repudiated your Ordinance. The Or |
dinance said that Slavery should be. forever !
prohibited in that country. The Constitution
with which you received them into the Union
as State said that all slaves then in the State
should remain slaves for life, and that all per-
sons bora of slave parents after certain day,
should be free at certain sge, and that ali
persons born in the State after q certain other
day, should be free from the time of their birth
Thus their State Constitution, as-well as their
Territorial Legislation, repudiated your Ordi-
nance. Illinois, therefore, is q case in point to
prove that whenever you have attempted to
dictate institutions TO any part of the United
States, you have failed. The same is true,
fbOrUh N m pvt cnr with rpta "a
to the Territory Of Indiana, where there were
many slaves during the time Of its Territorial
existence, and believe also there were a fe "
in the Territory of Ohio.
But, sir, these Abolition confederates In the
manifesto, have also referred 70 the wonderful
results of their policy in the State Of Iowa and
the Territory of Minnesota Hsre, again, they
happen to be in fault az to the laws OF the
land. The act to organize the Territory of
Iowa did not prohibit Slavery, but tho people
of Iowa were allowed to do a. they pleased
under the Territorial Government; for the sixth
section Of that act provided that the legislative
authority should extend to all riShtful subjects
Of legislation except as to the disposition of
the public lands, and taxes In certain cases, but
not excepting Slavery. 1t May, however, be
said by some that Slavery was prohibited in
Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act
which declared the laws Of Wisconsin to be in
force therein, inasmuch as the Ordinance of
1887 was ono of the laws of Wisconsin If
however they say this, they defeat their object
because the very clause which transfers the
laws OF Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes them of
force therein, also provides that those laws are
subject to be altered, modified or repealed, by
the Territorial Legislature Of Iowa. Iowa,
therefore, was left TO do as she pleased. Iowa,
when che came to form Constitution and
State Government preparatory to admission
;.,tof Ia Inio G