Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-05-06

:
have been adopted without that clause, and the
recopnition of slave property in which it was
f,nn3ed This vital fact results of itself from tho
history of the case. In March, Of the year 1874,
the Virginia delegation in the then Congress OF
tho Cunledepcy, headed by Mr. Jefferson and
Mr.. Monroe, conveyed the northwestern territory
20 the Thirteen United States. In the month OF
April ensuing the organizing mind Of Mr.. Jefer-
SON. always bent upon systems and administrations,
brought in an ordinance for the government Of the
territory conveyed, with the anti-slayery clause
ms part oft, to take effect in the year lSOOj but
without clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves
For want of this provision the nnii-slayery clause
Was opposed by the slayeholding States, and re-
jectcd; and the ordinance was passed without IT,
In July, Of the year 1871, the ordinance was re-
modelled the anti-slavcry clause, with the fugi-
tive slave recovery clause MS they now, stand were
inserted in it and in that shape the ordinance had
the unanimous vote Of every State presont-eiSht
in the whole--and an equal number Of slave and
free States present Thus, IL clear that the anti
slavery clause in the ordinance Of 1857 could not
have passed without the fugitive slave recovery
clause annexed. They were inscpernblc 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 city
Of New York, were the Congress OF the Coriedera-
ton then sat. Tho National Convention was SIT
ting at the same time in the city OF PhiadclPna'
at work upon the Federal Constitution. inc TWO
bodies were m constant COulHuniSNNiVh
other, and some leading mombers las Mr. Madison
and General lIamilton) we're members Of eacn,
and attending by turns in each The CONSTITUTION
was finished in September. and received the iu-
gitive slave recovery clause Immediately after its
lnsc-tion in the ordinance. Ii was the work OF
the same hands, and at the same time. in both
instruments; and il is well known that the Con-
stitution could not have been formed without that
clause. Thus tic compromise clause in the ordi-
nance is father to the compromise results from
both aud all three stand before me as founded in
thc same circumstances induced by the same con-
sidcrations, ard directed by the same polcy--that
of tho peace, harmony, and perpetuity OF this
Uuion. In point Of moral obligation | consider
them equal, and resulting from conditions which
rendered them indispensable. Two Of them have
all the qualities Of ccmpromise--thosc OF the
ordinance aud Of tho Constitution. They are
founded in agreement-in consent--in compact
A-and arc as sacred ard inyiolabe as human agree
raents can be. The third one-that Of the Mis-
Eouri anti-slavcry line-was not made upon agree
ment. II was imposed by votes--by the South up
on the North--ressted 10y the North at the time
acquiesced in afterwards and by that both parties
and the more 50 on the South because she imposed
il. repeat: it was an imposition, not a compact
The South divided and took choice and now i
will not do to claim the other half ON the groun'
Of the original dissatisfaction of the other party
Brothers eonnot divide an estate in that way-on
cannct make the division and take choice aud after
wards claim the other half The South has he
half. She gave il away oncc--gNvc II to Spain
and tho North helped her TO get back, even at th
expence Of men-wthout suspecting that she wa
btrenetheniur the South 10 enable il to take th
other half. But this attempt does not come irou
the South, and finds resistance there.
This brings us to the question Of repeal, o
abrogalion OF these compromises. The one i
the Constitution cannot be got rid Of without p
amendment to that instrument; and is, therefore
beyond the reach Of Congress. Tho other tw,
being in the form OF statutes, are subjects Of legs
lation and legally repeaable by Congress. Effort
were made to impair ore, that Of l7S7, some hft
years ago. An effort is now made to repeal th
other and the history and fate of the first nttorI
may be advantageous in the consideration oil tn
second. 1t was in the year 1903. The then Te
ritory Of Indiana had been slave territory undc
tho French Government, and continued so unde
the American until 1857. 1t extended to the Mi
sissippi, and contained many slaycs. Nincenne
Cahokia, Prairie dc Rocher, Kaskaskia, were a
slayeholding towns. The inhabitants were attacl
od TO that property, and wished to retain it, at lea
temporarily; and also to invite a slaveholdin
emigration, until an increase OF population shoul
afford an adequate supply Of free labor; and the
pettioned Congress accordingly. The peutio
came from convention Of tho people, prcside
over by Governor Harrison, and only asked for tn
SUSPENSION Of the ant-slavery part OF the ord
nance for ten years, and limited in its applicativ
TO their own territory. The petition was reierre
70 select committee Of the House; Mr.. Randolp
was chairman and received lis answer in report
in these words:
"That the rapid population Of the State Of Ohio
sufficiently evncos, in the opinion Of your con
mttee, that the labor Of slaves is not necessary
promote the growth and settlement OF colonies
that region. That this labor, demonstrably Il
dearest Of any, can only be employed To advantaG
in the cultivation of products more valuable tina
any now in that quarter of the United Statc
that the committee deem il highly dangerous al
oxpcdicnt TO impair provision wisely calculate
60 promote the happiness and prosperity OF Il
northwestern country, and to give strength an
security to that extensive frontier In the salutaI
operation Of this the inhabitants Of Indiana vii
ut no very distant day, find ample rcmuncrntio
for temporary priyatOu Of labor and emigr
ton"
This was the answer Of the select committee
and il became the answer Of tho llOusc-ot til
House ust fifty years aGo--whcn the Sonth W.
about ably represented here as 1t ever has bee
since, and when its relative strength was grcat
than It has ever been since. The answer
pcremptory refusal Ia yield to the petition OF Il
people of Indiana, even for n ten years local su
pension of this ant-slayery clause. "llighly da
yerous and inexpedient to impair that provision
Yes, to impair! that is the word and it Is q r
fusal to weaken or lesson, in the smallest degre
nn act which the committee call u benevolent N
sagacous act;" and which they recommend
maintain unimpaired, because it is calculated
increase the happiness and prosperity Of tho mort
west, and TO give strength and security to !
frontier" That Congress and what without
rision between North and South, would not ia
pair an act Of 40 much future good to posert
mot even upon the mistaken application Of a fe
present Inhabitants.
But this was not the end Of the petitions. tt
people Of Indiana were not satisfied with OF
repulse. They returned to the charge and fol
Rimes more, ia the course Of as many years. L
snewed their application for the ten years suspe
sion of the ordinance il was rejected each tim
and once in the Senate, where the North CaroliI
Senator Mr. Jesse Frangiinl was chairman
tue Committee which made the report Ggainst
Five times, in as manyyears, rejected by Congress
aud the rejection the more emphatic in some j
stances because it was the reversal by the Hou
Of favorable report from a committee. Al
nos what inhaJitant Of Indiana docs not rejoi
H. daIirarapea u-hicb tba 6rp,naea of Con0re