Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1854-05-12
NUMBER le.


line did the same by the additional territory
Of the United States as it stood in ! ego, aud
in both cases it was done by act Of Congress,
and was Tie settlement Of difficulty which
was to last forever. | consider them both.
with their fugitive slave clause in the const.
tuition, as part aud parcel of the same trans.
action-ditferent articles in the same general
settlement
The anti. slavery clause in the ordinance Of
1857 could not have been put in las was
proved by its three years reelection without
the fugitive slave recovery clause added to it.
The Constitution could not have been formed
without the recognition Of slavery 10 the
States which choose it, and the right Of re-
covering slaves fleeing 10 the free States
The Missouri controversy could not have been
settled except by the prohibition of slavery
in the upper half Of the territory of Louisi-
ana; and that prohibition could not have
been obtained without the right to recover
fugitive slaves from the part made free
Thus the three measures are one, and the
ordinance of 1887 father to the other two
1t led 10 the adoption Of the fugitive slave
clause in the Constitution, and we may say
to the formation Of the Constitution ITSELF
which could not have been adopted without
that clause aud the recognition of slave
property in which is was founded. This Vi
tai fact results of itself from the history of
the case. In March, of the year, 1884, the
Virginia delegation in the then Congress of
the Confederation, headed by Mr.. Jefferson
and Mr. Monroe conveyed the Northwestern
territory to the thirteen United States. In
the month of April ensuing the organization
mind of Mr.. Jefferson, always bent upon sys-
TENS and administration, brought in an ordi-
nance for the government of the territory SO
conveyed, with the anti slavery clause as "a
part Of it, to take effect in the year 1900
but without a clause for the recovery of fugi-
, tive slaves. For want OF this provision the
, anti-saverv clause was opposed by the slave
holding States and rejected; and the ordi-
nance was passed without it. In July. of the
year 1897, the ordinance was remodeled, the
anti-savery clause. with the fug;tivs slave
recovery clause as they now stand, were in
serted in it; and in that shape the ordinance
had the unanimous vote of every State pres
ent-eight in the wholc--and an equal mum
Der of slave and free States present Thus
: it is clear ihat the anli.savery clause in The
: ordinance of 1887 could not have passed
without the fugitive slave recovery clause
annexed. They were inscparable in the
birth. and must be so in their life; and thost
who love one must accept the other.
This was done in The month Of July, in the
! city of New York, where the Congress- Of th,
Confederation then sat. The National Con
vention was sitting at the same time in th
city of Philadelphia, at work upon the Fed
era Constitution. The two bodies were il
constant communication with each other, ant
= some leading members (as Mr.. Madison ant
Gen. Hamilton,) were members of each, ant
> attending by turns in each. The Cons.itu
! ton was finished in September, and receve
: the fugitive slave recovery clause immediate
7" y after its insertion in the ordinance.
! ;, was the work of the same hands, and at tn
= :, same time, in both instruments; and il wa
- well known that the Constitution could nc
. have been formed without that clause. Thu
y the compromise clause in the ordinance
~ father to tie compromise clause in the Coz
stitution; and the Missouri Compromise re
= suits from both; and all three stand befoi
p" me as founded in the same circumstance
indeed By the same considerations. and
recled by tie same policy-that Of the peac
As harmony and perpetui;y Of the Union.
e point OF moral obligation consider the
r equal, and resulting from considerations whiC
g render them Indispensable Two Of the
'e have all the qualities of compromise, lho
'e of the ordinance and Of the Constitution
OF They are founded in agreement, in compac
n and are as sacred and inviolable as huma
H. agreements can be. The third one. that
= the Missouri anti-slavery line. was not maj
OF upon agreement. 1t was imposed by vot,
u BY the South upon the North, resisted
us the North at the time, acquiesced in aftt
ne wards; and by that acquiescence became
u binding covenant between both parties; al
n the more so on the South because she il
ne posed it. | repeat, it was an imposition, n
or compact. The South difidcd, and TO
oi choice; and now it will not do to claim 4
ne other half OH the ground of the original
We satisfaction of the other party. Brothe
er cannot divide an estate in that way-o
1y make he division, aud take choice, afte
ry wards claim the other half. The South
oI her half. She gave it away once-gave it
It's Spain-and the North helped her to get
We back, even at the expense of war. witho
suspecting that she was strengthening
en- Sou,h to enable her to take the other half.
in But this attempt does not come from t
ty South, and finds resistance there.
ne THE RESULT OF AN ATTEMPT TO REPEAL t
10 COMPROMISE OF 1887.
OF This brings US to the question of rep
no or sbrogation of these compromises.
de one in the constitutions cannot be got rid
or without an amendment to that irstrume
all and is therefore beyond the reach of c,
ST. gress.-The other two, being in the form
- statutes. are subjects Of Legislation, and
y gally repealable BY Congress Efforts W
oy made to impair one, that Of 1887, some f
IN years ago. An effort is now made to rep
no the other; and the history and fate Of
N first attempt may be advantageous in
en- consideration Of the second. II was in
- year 1903. The then Territory of Indi
ro' had been slave territory under the Fre
'eh Government, and continued so under
at American until 1887. 1t extended to