Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1854-05-18

oPeu proposition TO break up the Union the at
tempt 70 ahrogate the compromises of 1877 and
1890 roaid be virtually attempts To destroy the
h,rmony of the Union. and prepare it for disso
luton Ivy destroying the confidence and affection
In winch ii is founded.
The Missouri Compromise Of 1920 is con
tinua'Ion OF the ordinance of l7s7-its extension
10 the since acquired territory west OF the Mis-
sissippi and in no way differing from il either in
prlaciple or detail The ordinance of 1877 d.
vided 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 States in
$50; and in both cases it was done by act of
Congress. and the settlement of a difficulty
which was TO last forever. | consider them both,
with their fugitive slave recovery clauses; and the
similar clause IN the constitution. as part and par
Gel OF the same transaction-dH different articles in
the general settlement.
The anti slavery clause in the ordinance of
1877 could not have been put in Gas was proved
by its three years rejection) without the fugitive
slave recovery clause add TO it. The constitu
ton could not have been formed without the rec
ognition of slavery in the States which chose If,
and the right of recovering slaves fleeing to the
free States. The Missouri Compromise could
not have been settled except By the prohibition of
slavery. in the upper half of the Territory OF
Louisiana and that prohibition could not have
been obtained without the right 10 recover fugi
tive slaves from the part made free.
Thus. the three measures Que, and the ordi
nance of 1877 father of the other two. Ii led 10
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, and the recognition
OF slave property IN which II founded This
vital fact results OF itself from the history OF the
case In March Of the year 1874, the Virginia
delegation in the then Congress of the Confroera-
conveyed the northwestern territory to the thir
teen United States In the month of April ensu-
ing. the organized mind of Mr.. Jefferson, always
bent upon systems and administration, brought in
an ordinance for the government OF the territory
conveyed, with the anti-savery clause as 4 part
of it, to take effect in the year 500 but without
the clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves For
the want OF this provision the antislavery clause
was opposed by the slave holding states and re-
ieced and the ordinance passed without it. Ia
July of the year 1877, the ordinance was re mod
eie,i, the anti-slavery clause with the fugitive
slave recovery clause. they now stand. were an
serted in it; and in that shape the ordinance had
the unanimous vote of every state present-eight
IN the whole-and equal number of slave and
Tree states present. Thus, it is clear that the
tislavery clause in the ordinance of 1877 could
not have passed without the fugitive slave claL e
annexed They were InSeparable in their birth,
and must be their life; and those who love
one. must accept the other
This done in the month of July, in the city
Of New York. where the Congress OF the con
federation then sat. The National Convention
sitting al the same time in the city of Phla-
delphia. at work upon the federal constitution
The two bodies in constant communication
with each other and some leading member las
Mr.. Madison and General Hamiltonl were mem
beers OF each, and attending by turns in each
The constitution was finished in September, and
received the fugitive slave recovery clause imme-
diately after its insertion in the ordinance IL
was the work OF The same hands, and at the same
time IN both instruments; and II Is well known
that the constitution could not have been formed
without that clause
Thus the compromise clause in the ordinance
is father TO the compromise clause in the consti-
tuition: and the Missouri Compromise results
from both and all three stand before me as found
ed on the circumstances, induced by the
same considerations, and directed by the same
81 rr1sh t Il the ia Feh h6ns Of moral o6Ssfa6
| consider them equal aud resulting from condi-
tons which render them indispensable Two OF
them have all the qualities OF a compromise
those of the ordinance and OF the constitution
They founded in agreenen:-in consent
In compact-and are sacred and inviulable as
human agreements can be. The third one-rhat
OF the Missouri anti slavery ine-was not made
upon agreement.
IA tOI-I Dy southern Votes.
Ii was imposed by voteS--by the South upon the
Norih-resisted bv the North at the rine-ac
quiesced in afterwards; and by that acqniescence
became binding covenant between both parties :
and the more so on the South because she irpposed
repeat: II was an imposition, not a compact
The South divided and took choice: and now j.
Will not do 10 claim the other half on the ground
OF the Original dissatisfaction of the other party
Brothers cannot divide estate in that way
ar ma e the division nd taI 81,
wards claim the other halt The South has her
halt. She gave 1t away once-gave il to Spain
and the North helped her to get 1t back again al
the expense of war-not suspecting that she was
strengthening the South to enable it to take the
other ha.f Bat this attempt does nor come from
the South, and finds resistance there
The Result of an Attempt to Repeal the Compro
mise Of 1851
This brings us to the question OF repeal or abro
CATION OF these compromises. The one in the
constitution cannot be got rid of without an
amendment TO that instrument, and is therefore
beyond the reach of Congress The other two,
being in the form of statutes are subjects Of lecis
lation, and legally repealable by Congress IF
forts made TO impair one, that of 1897.
some fifty years ago. An effort is nov made to
repeal the other; and the history and fate of the
first attempt may be advantageous in the consid
Grafton of the second. 1t was in the year 1903
The then territory OF Indiana had been slave ter
rfoFy under The french Government. and contln-
ned so under the American until 1887 Ii ex-
tended TO the Mississippi, and contained many
slaves. Nincennes. Cahokia. Prairie de Rocher
kaskaskia, were all slaveholding towns The in
habtants were attached TO the property, and wish
ei 10 retain it, at least temporarily and also to
invite savehoding migration until an increase
OF population should form an adequate supply of
fec labor and they pettionod Congress accor-
DINGHY. The petition came from a convention of
the people, presided over by Governor Harrison
and only asked for the suspension OF the anti
slavery part of the ordinance for ten wears and
limited IN ITS application to their own territory
The petition was referred 10 a select committee
OF the House; Mr.. Randolph was chairman ami
received ITS answer IN report, in these words
That the rapid population OF the State OF Ohio
sufficiently evinces, III the opinion OF Your com
mlttee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary
u support the growth and settlement of colonies
in that region. That this labor demonstrably
the dearest of any can only be employed 10 ad-
vantage IN the cultivation of products more val
ua5e than any known in that quarter of the
United States; that the committee deem il highly