New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-01-25
an area Of $4,000 sgqsrc miles more than twelve times

"a
iis immense region occupying the very heart OF the
North American Continent und larger, by $4,000 square
miles lun all The existing Free States excluding Calfor
ue-s immeufe region. well wat red and fertile through
which lie middle and northern routes from the Atlantic to
DC Pacific must pessthis immense region, embracing ell
urorgaDzed territory Of the nation. except the com
paiavoy iDgn oant district Of Indian territory north
Of Red River and between Arkansas 0ld Texas and now
ior more than thirty yean regarded by The cOmmon con
fcnt OF the American people az consecfa'ed 10 feod1n
by statute ard by Compaci-this immense region, the bill
row before tie Senate without AID without
but in fragrant disregard Of sound policy and sacred faith
propCsCs to open 20 slavery.
beg your attention fellow Citizens TO lew hlstoi'
cal facts
Tie original settled policy Of the United States clearly
indicated By the JeeTson Proyo Of 7s and by the Or-
diLouce Of l757. was non extension Of Slavery.
In 1868 Louisiana acquired by purchase from
France At that time there were some twenty I'VE or
tlrty tEourcnd slaves in uis Territory most OF tnem
v,.hin what is now the State Of L9uisana few only
hrtl or moth on the west bank Of the Mississippi Con
cres instead Of providing for the abolition OF slavery n
State Of Louisiana organized and admitted into the
n iss six Years later ho inhabitants Of the Territory
Of Msour applied to Congress for authority 70 lrin
state Constitution and for admission into the Union
ere were al that time in the whole Territory acquired
from France outside Of the State Of Louisiana, not three
houtaDd slaves
There was no apology in tho circumstance Of the coun
tiy Cor The connu Of Slavery The original national
policy against it, end, not less the plain language of
tbc treaty under which the Territory had been acquired
from France.
Il vas proposed therefore to INCORPORATE in the bin
authorizing Tie formation Of Stefe Government pro.
vision requiring that the Constitution Of the now State
should contain article providing for the abolition of
existing Slavery and prohibiting the frthe Introduction
Of slaves.
This provision was vehemeny and pertinaciousIy op.
posed but FINELY prevailed in the House Of Represent
Gves by decided vote In the Senate it was rejected,
end in consequence of the disagreement between the two
At The next session of Congress the controversy was re-
newed with increased violence. 1t terminated at
a1la
into the Union with Slavery but section was inserted in
the act authorizing her admission, excluding Slavery for
ever from al the territory acquired from France not in
Cuded in the State lying north Of SO deg 80 min
We quote the prohibitory section: ~
The question Of the cOnstituonaity Of this prohibition
submitted BY President Monroe to his Cabinet John
CabCrn was Secretary Of War William II. Crawford
Secretary Of the Treasury; and William Writ wgs
Attorney General Each Of these eminent men, three Of
them being from Slave States, gave Il written opinion
affirming its cOnstitutonay, and thereup0n tie act re
ceyed the sanction OF the President, himself also nom
Slave State.
Nothing is more certain in history thBn the fact that
MlscUri could not have been admitted as Slave State
he'd not certain members from the Free States been recon
ciod to tho by the Incorporation OF this prohib
ton into the act of admission. Nothing is certain
than that this prohibition has been regarded and accepted
by the whole country q solemn compact against the
tension Slavery into any part of the Territory acquired
from France lying north of 36 deg. 80 min, and not in
cluded in the new State Of Missouri The same actlet
il be remembered-which authorized the formation
Of Constitution for that State without clause forbid
ding Slavery, cOnsecraed beyond question and beyond
honest recall the whole remainder of the Territory TO
Freedom and Free Institutions, forever For than
thirty years-dUrDg more than half the period OF our ma
tOnal existence under present C0nsutiOa-ths
pact has been universally regarded and acted upon as in
vio0tlc American law. In conformity with it Iowa
admitted Free State and Minnesota has been organ
lied as Free Territory.
II is n strange and omnous fact well calculated to
awaken the wOrst appehensons, and the most fearful
orebodngs of future calamity that it is deliberately
IulpOstd 10 repeal this prohibition by implication di
rcctythe latter certainly the msnler wayand thus to
subye1t this compact, and allow Slavery in all the yet
organized territory.
Wecanno in tha address review the various pre.en-
under which is attempted to cloak this mon5trous
wrong but must not altogether omit TO notice one.
Ii s said that the Territory OF Nebraska sustaiss the
relations to Slavery did the territory acquired from
Mexico prior TO 1850 ard that the pro slavery clauses Of
The bill Necessary to carry into effect the compromises
No assertion could be more groundless.
Three acquisitions Of territory have been made by
treaty. The first from France. Out of this territory
have been created bo three slave states Of LOUISIANA Ar
kansas and Missouri ond the single free state OF Iowa
The controversy which arose in relation to the then unor
ganized portion Of this territory closed ID 1920 by the
Missouri act containing the Slavery prohibition as has
been already stated This controversy elaed only 20 ter
rorv acquired from France The act by which
minated confined by its express terms othe same
territory and had 10 relation to any other
The second acquisition was from Spain. Florl1a the
territory thus acquired was yielded TO Slavery without
struggle, and almost without q murnur
The third was from Mexico. The controversy which
arose from this acquisition is fresh in the remembrance Of
the American people. Out of It sprung the acts OF Con
giess commonly known a: the Comprom.e treasures OF
1880 by of which California was admitted as FREQ
StaV; while two others, organizing the Territories OF
Now Mexico and Utah, exposed ell the residue Of the re-
Gently acquired territory to the Invasion of Slavery.
These acts supposed to abrogac or tonchhe
existing exclusion Of Slavery from what IS no called Ne
biaska They applied TO the territory acquired from
Mtxico and to that only. They were intended as set
oNent of the controversy growing out of that acquisition
and Of that controversy only They must stand or fall by
their own merits.
The stateamcn whose powerful support carried the Utah
and New Mexico acts dreamed that their provisions
would ever be applied TO Nebraska Even at the last
sion Of Congress- Mr. Atchson Of Missouri in speech
in favor OF taking up the former Nebraska bill on the
morning Of the All C March, 1853 said "It is evident
" that the Missouri Compromise cannot be repealed 80
far that question is concerned, might as well agree
to the admission Of this Territory now next year, or
five or ten years hence" These words could not have
fallen from this waohiu guardian of Slavery, had he sup
posed hat this Territory was embraced by tue pro oaY
cry provisions o. the Compromise acts. This pretension
hGI then been set set up. 1t was palpable after
thought
ITO Compromise Acts themselves refute this pretenson
tie third article of the second section of the Joint Reso
luton for anneXug Texas 10 the United States il is
pTcsly declared that in such State States shall be
formed out Of said Territory north OF said Missouri Com
promise line Slavery involuntary seryitude except
for crime shall be prohibited; ~ and in the Act for or
gan:zng New Mexico and settling the boundary OF Texas
provso incorporated, the motion OF Ar Mason
of Virginia, which distinctly preserves this prohibition
and OuS the barefaced pretens0n that all the territory of
The United States whether south north Of the Missouri
Compromise line IL to be open to Slavery. Il is as fol
lows
Pord That nothing herein contained shall be construed to
impair qraiy thing toe third article Of the
end section Of be Joint Resolution for snnexs United
states approved Mrrehl 1875 either regards tie number
otf ersIe" jsj VI
Here is proof beyond controversy that the principle of
the Missouri Act prohibiting slavery north of SO deg 80