Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1854-05-05
LEWISBURG, UNION COUNTY, PENN, FRIDAY, MAY s. 1854

its abrogation bring! That IS the states
man squestion; and without assuming to be
much of statesman, claim to be enough
so to consider the consequences Of break
ing settlement which paci6ed continen.
l remember the Missouri controversy, and
how it destroyed all social feeling, and ali
capacity for beneficial legislation; and
merged all political principles 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. / do
not wish to see such times again; and,
therefore, am against reviving 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 perpetual settlement and
chasing with the two great compromises
which gave US the ordinance Of July Is,
1887, and the Federal Constitution, Of
September II, Of the same year. There
are three slavery compromises in our his
tory, which connect themselves with the
foundation and the preservation Of this
Union. First, the territorial partition or
dinance of 1887, with its clause for the
recovery of fugitive slaves; secondly, the
cotemporancous constitutional recognition
of slavery in the States which chose to
have it, with the fugitive slave recovery
clause in the same instrument ; thirdly, the
Missouri partition line Of 1920, with the
same clause annexed for the recovery Of
fugitive slaves. All three of these COM
promises 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 recove-
ry clause incorporated in it Tie anti
slavery clause in the ordinance of 1877
could not have been adopted (as was
proved byi,s three years rejoction) without
the fugitive slave recovery clause added to
it the Constitution could not have been
formed without its recognition of slavery
in the States which chose it, and the guar
autee of the right to recover si"'e- n--;--
into the free states rne Missouri contro-
versy could not have been settled without
a 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 fugi-
tive slaves. Thus, al. three compromises
are settlements Of existing questions, and
intended to be perpetual. They are all
three of equal moral validity. The con-
stitutional compromise is guarded by a
higher obligation in consequence Of its in
corporation in that instrument; bu. it no
way differs from the other two in the cir
which induced it, or the conse-
quences which would few from is abrosa-
ton. A proposition to destroy the slavery
in the Constitution, would be
an open proposition to break up the Union;
the attempt to abrogate the compromises of
1857 and 1920, would be virtual attempts
to destroy the harmony Of the Union, and
prepare it for dissolution, by destroying the
confidence and affection in which it is
founded
The Missouri compromise Of 1920 is
of the ordinance Of 11S7-
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 Stales as it stood in 1890; and
in both cases it was done by act of Con-
gress and was the settlement Of difficult
ty which was to last for ever l consider
them both, with their fugitive slave recov-
cry clauses, and the similar clause in the
as part and parcel of the same
different articles in the same
general settlement
The anti-slavery clause in the ordinance
Of 1856, could not have been put in Gas
was proved by its three years rejection)
without the the fugitive slave recovery
clause added to it. The Constitution could
not have been formed without the recog-
milton of slavery in the States which chose
it, and the right of recovering slaves fec
ing to the free States The Missouri con-
trovcrsy 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
without the right to recover fu-
gitive slaves from the part made free.
Thus, the three measures are one, and the
ordinance Of 17S7 father to the other two
1t led to the adoption of the fugitive slave
clause in the Constitution, and VIC may
say, to the formation of the Constitution
itself, which could not have been adopted
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 1884,
the Virginia delegation in the then Con-