Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-18

wear llVU, Mnen congress htttpltu bnt OtohlON, OF
of what is now Tennessee from South Carolina.
Nor did the acceptance of that cesson Indicate any
purpose of establishing geographical line between
slavery and freedom Why, sir, on the contrary,
the State of North Carolina, aware that in the alb
scnce of any stipulation to the contrary, slavery
would be prohibited in the ceded territory IN pur
suance of the established policy Of the Government
introduced into her deed of cession an extra pro-
vision that the ant-slavery article of the ordinance
of 1877 should not be applied to it. 1t may be
said that Congress should have refused to accept
the cession. / agree in that opinion. But slavery
already existed in the district part of the State
of North Carolina, and il was probably thought
unreasonable to deny the wish Of the State for its
continuance.
The same motives decided the action Of Georgia
in making her cession of the territory between
her western limits aud the Mississippi and the
action of Congress accepting 1t. The acceptance
of both these cessions, as well the adoption and
re-enactment by Congress of the slave laws of
MARYLAND for the District Of Columbia were de-
partures from original policy but they indicated
no purpose to establish any geographical line.
They were the result of tho gradually increasing
indifference to the claims of freedom, after the
adoption of the Constitution. Luther Martin had
complained in 1888, that "when our liberties were
at stake We warmly felt for the common rights Of
man. The danger being thought to he past which
threatened ourselves, we daily growing more
and more inscnsible to those rights" 1t was this
growing WHICH, 10 tlOSc
from original policy. Afterwards, in 1908, Louis
lana was acquired from France Did we then
hasten to establish geographical line? No, sir
In louisiana as in the territories acquired from
Georgia and North Carolina, congress rcfrained
from applying the policy of 1887; Congress did
not interfere with existing slavery Congress con.
tented itself with enactments prohibiting nbso
lutoy the introduction Of slaves from beyond the
limits Of the United States and also prohibiting
their introduction from any Of the States, except by
bona fde owners, actually removing to Louisiana
for settlement. When Louisiana was admitted
into the Union, in 1912, restriction was imposed
on her in respect TO slavery At this time there
were slaves all along up the west bank of the
Mississippi as far as ST. Louis, and perhaps even
above.
In 1918 Missouri applied for admission into the
Union. Free States awoke to the danger o. the
total overthrow of the original policy of the coun
try. They saw that no State had taken measures
for the abolition Of slavery since the adoption oil
the Constitution. They saw that the feeble at
tempt TO restrict the introduction Of slaves int
the territories acquired from Georgia and from
France had utterly failed They insisted, there
fore, that in the formation of constitution, the
people Of the proposed State should embody in il
provision for the gradual abolition Of the exist
ing slavery, and prohibiting the further introduc
ton OF slaves By this time the slave interest had
become strong, and the slave power was prett,
firmly established. The demand of she free States
was yehemently contested. A bill preparatory tc
the admission Of Missouri, containing the nro
posed restriction, was passed by the House anC
sent to the Senate. In that body the bill wa,
amended by striking out the restriction the IIoust
refused to concur in tho amendment; the Senat,
insisted on it, and the bill failed. At the mex
session Of Congress the controversy was renewed
In the mean time Maine had been severed from
Massachusetts,, had adopted a constitution and haC
applied for admission into the Union. A bill pro
viding for her admission passed the House. an,
was sent to the Senate. This bill was amended il
the Senate by lacking to it bill for the admissio
OF Missouri, and by the addition of section pro
hibiting slavery in all the territory acquired b,
Louisiana north Of sec 30> The House refused /,
concur in these amendments, and the Senate nsket
for committee of conference, to which the Hous
lagrced. During the progress of these events, th,
House, after passing the Maine BILL had also passe,
II bill for the admission Of Missouri, embodying th
restriction upon slavery in the State. The Senat
amended the bill by striking out the restriction
and by inserting the section prohibiting SLAYER,
north Of 36o 30\.
This section came from the South through Mr.
Thomas the Senator from Illinois, who had uni
iormly voted with the slave States against all re
slricton. 1t was adopted on the 18th February
iSao as an amendment TO the Maine and Missouri
bill, by u ayes, against 10 noes.
Mr.. HUNTER. | think that the provision passet
without a division in the Scnate.%
MIR. CHASE. The Senator is mistaken. Four
teen Senators from the slave States, and twent,
from the free States voted for that amendment
Eight from the former, and two from the latte
voted against it, No vote oy ayes and noes wa
taken VIXEN the same amendment was engrafte,
upon the separate Missouri bill, a few days later
the sense OF the Senate having been asccrtained b.
the former vote.
=, This was the condition Of matters when the com
mlttce OF conference, for which the Senate hat
asked, mnde their report The members of th
ICOmmlttpe from tlp Spnnto u+oro nf g.,
able to the Senate amendments. In the House, tn
Speaker, Henry CLAY, was also in favor of then
f and he had the appointment Of the committee. 0
course he took care, as he has since informed tn
country, to constitute the committee in such man
ner and OF such persons rs would be most likely 4
secure their adoption. The result was what nigh
have been expected. 1t recommended that tn
Senate should rccede from its amendments TO tn
Maine bill, and that the House should concur il
the amendment to the Missouri BILL Euougl
members from the free States were found to turl
the scale against the proposed restriction Of SLAYER
IN the State; and the amendment of the Senat
striking 1t out was concurrcd in by ninety yea
against ,eighty-seven nays. From this momen
successful opposition TO the introduction of Mis-
souri, with slavery was impossible. Nothing re
mained to determine the character of the residue
the Louisiana acquisition; and the amendment pre-
hibitng slavery north Of 3G0 30> was concurred il
by one hundred and thirty-four yeas against forty
two nays. OF the yeas, thirty-eight were fror
slave aud nfnctysix from free States of the nays
thrty-seyen were from slave States and five fror
g free. Among those who voted with the maiorit
D was Mr.. LowNDEs, Of South Carolina, whose vote
estimated by the worth and honor of the man, out
weighs many oppostes.
, Now, for the first time, was q geographical lin
established between slavery and freedom in thi
: country.
Let us pause, and ascertain upon what principl
this compromise was adopted, and to what terrior
it applied. The controversy was between the tw
great sections of the Union. The subject was
vast extent of almost unoccupied country embraC
ing the whole territory west Of the Missssippi
was territory in which slave law existed at the tim
OF acquisition. The compromise section containe
no provision allowing slavery south Of 500 30>.
could never have received the sanction of Congress
. If il had. The continuance Of slavery there wa
left to the determination Of circumstances. Their
was an implied understanding that Congress shoul
not interfere with the operation of these circun
stances-and that was ali. The prohibition mort
of 560 SO> was absolute and perpetual The act il