Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31


ernment, il established and protected slavery, and
maintained il in spite ofyour ordinance and in
defiance OF its express prohibition. Il is curious
fact that, long Congress said the territory OF
Illinois should not have slavery, she actually had
il; and on the very day when you Withdrew your
Congressional prohibition the people of Illinois,
of their own free will and accord, proved for a
system OF emancipation.
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory
with your ordinance or your Wilmot Provso, be-
cause the people there regarded il as an invasion
of their rights they regarded il as an usurpation
on the part Of the federal government. They re-
garded it as violatiye of the great principles Of
seEgovernment, and they determined that they
would never submit even to have freedom so long
as you forced il upon them.
Nor must il be said that slavery abolished
in the constitution of Illinois in order 10 be ad-
mitted into the Union as State, in compliance
with the ordinance Of 1857; for they did no such
thing. In the constitution with which the people
of Illinois were admitted into the Union, they alb
solutsly violated, dsregarded, and repudiated
your ordinance. The ordinance 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 persons born of slave parents after certain
day should be free NJ n certain age, and that all
persons born in the State after certain other day
should be free from the time of their birth. Thus
their State constitution, well as their territorial
legislation, repudiated your ordnance Illinois,
therefore, is case in point 10 prove that when
ever you have attempted to dictate institutions 10
any part of the United States, you have failed
The same is true, though not TO the same extent,
with reference to the Territory Of Indiana, where
there were many slaves during the time Of its ter
ritoral existence, and believe also there were
few in the Territory of Ohio
But sir these abolition confederates, in their
manifesto have also referred to the wonderful re-
an Ia nf thair in Mat Of
Territory of Minnesota Here, again, they happen
to be in fault as to the laws OF the land. The act
TO organize the Territory of Iowa did not prohibit
slavery, but the people of Iowa We're allowed TO
do as they pleased under the territorial govern.
ment for the sixth section of that act provided
that the legislative authority should extend TO all
rghtful subjects OF Legislation except to the dis
position of the public lands, and taxes in certain
cases, but not excepting slavery. II may, how
ever, 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 the ordinance of 17S7
was one of the laws Of Wisconsin,. IT. however,
they say this, they defeat their object, because
the very clause which transfers the laws Of Wis
consin 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 she came to form
constitution and State government, preparatory
TO admission into the Union, considered the sub
Ject OF free and slave institutions calmly, dispas-
sionately, without any restraint or dictation and
determined that il would be 10 the interest Of her
people in their climate and with their productions,
toprohibit slavery; and hence Iowa became a free
State by virtue of this great principle of allowing
the people to do they please, and not in obedi.
ence TO any federal command
The abolitonists also in the habit Of refer
ring to Oregon another instance of the triumph
of their abolition policy. There again they have
overlooked or msrepresented the history OF the
country. Sir, it is well known if it is not, il
ought 10 be, that for about twelve years you failed
TO give Oregon any government or any protection;
and during that period the inhabitants of that
country established a government of their own,
and, by virtue OF their own laws, passed by their
own representatives before you extended your
jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by
unanimous vote. Slavery was prohibited there
by the action of the people themselves and not by
virtue of any Legislation Of Congress.
II is true that, in the midst Of the tornado which
swept over the country in 1S4S, 1S49, and 1885,
provision was forced into the Oregon bill prohibit
ing slavery in that territory; bnt that only goes
to show that the object of those who pressed il
was not much to establish free institutions as to
gain political advantage by giving an ascendancy
to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land
for slavery having been already prohibited there,
and no man proposing TO establish it, what was
the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon by
saying in your law that they should not do that
which they had unanimously said they did not
wish to doa That was the only effect ofyour le-
gslation far as the Territory Of Oregon was
aerned.
How was il in regard TO California; Every one
Of these abolition confederates, who have thus
arraigned me and the Committee ou Territories,
before the country have misrepresented our
position, and misquoted the law oil the fact pre-
dicated that unless Congress interpossed by law,
and prohibited slavery in California, il would in
cvitably become slaveholding State. Congress
did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit slavery
There was no enactment npon the SUBJECT
but the people formed State constitution, and
then prohibited slavery.
Mr.. WELLER. The vote was unanimous in
the convention of California for prohibition.
Mr. DOUGLAS. So il was in regard 10 Utah
and New Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any
att empt to force institutions upon the people of
those territories inconsistent with their wishes
and their right to decide for themselves, were de-
nounced as slavery propagandsts. Every one
Of us who was in favor of the compromise
measures Of 1850 was arraigned for having advo-
Gated a principle proposing to introduce slavery
into those territories, and the people were told,
and made to believe that, unless we prohibited il by
act of Congress, slavery would necessarily and in
evitably be introduced into these territories.
Well, sir, we did establish the territorial gov
Of Utah and New Mexico without any
prohibition. We gave to these aboltonists full
opportunity of proving whether their predictions
the result is before us The people there have not
passed any law recognising, or establishing, or
protecting slavery in the terri
tories. f.
know ofbut one territory ofthe United States
where slavery does exist, and that one is where
you have prohibited il by law; and it is this very
Nebraska territory. In defiance Of the eighth
section Of the act Of 1920, in defiance of congress
sonal dictation there have been, not many, but
few slaves introduced. / heard minister of the
Gospel the other day conversing with member
of the Committee on Territories upon this sub
lect This preacher was from that country, and
a member put this question 10 him. Have you
any negroes out therep He said there were a
few held by the Indians. | asked him if there
were not some held by white men? He said
there were few under peculiar circumstances,
and he gave an instance. An abolition mis-
sionary, very good man, had gone there
from Boston, and he took his wife with him.
He got out into the country but could not get
any help; hence he, being kind-hcarted man.
went down to Missouri and gave 81 900 for ne
gro, and took him up there as "help." Laughter
So, under peculiar circumstances, when these
lreesoil and abolition preachers and missionaries
go into the country, they buy negro for their
own use, but they do not like TO allow any one
else to do the same thing tRenewed laughter
suppose the fact Of the matter is simply this |