Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-05-04

I
controversy, and how il destroyed all social feel.
ing, and all capacity for beneficial legislation
and merged all political principle in an an
cry contest about slavery-dividing the Union
into two parts, and drawing up the two halves
into opposite and confronting lines, like enemies
on the field of battle / do not wish TO see such
times again and therefore am against reviving
them by breaking up the settlement which quiet
ed them. The Missouri Compromise of 1920
was the partitlonng between the free and slave
States. OF great province, taking the character
OF perpetual settlement and CHASING with the
two great Compromises which gave us the Ordi-
nance of July 49, 1857, and the Federal Consti.
tuition, of September II, of the same year. There
are three slavery Compromises in our history,
which connect themselves with the foundation
and preservation of this Union. First, the Terri
torial Partition of Ordinance of 1887, with its
clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves sec
ondly, the cotemporaneous constitutional rccog-
milton of Slavery in the States which chose to
have it, with the fugitive slave recovery clause
in the same instrument; thirdly, the Missouri
partition line of 1890, with the same clause an
nexed for the recovery of fugitive slaves. All
three of these Compromises are part and par
eel of the same policy; and neither of them uld
have been formed without the other, nor either
of them without the fugitive slave recovery
clause incorporated init. The ant-slavery clause
in the Ordinance of 1887, could not have been
adopted (as was proved by its three years rejec-
tion) without the fugitive slave recovery clause
added to it the Constitution could not have been
formed without its recognition of slavery in the
States which chose it, and the guarantee OF the
right to recover slaves fleeing into the free States
the Missouri controversy could not have been set.
tied without partition of Louisiana between
free and slave soil and that partition could not
have been made without the addition of the same
clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Thus,
all three Compromises are settlements of existing
questions, and intended TO be perpetual. They
are all three of equal moral validity. The Con-
stitutional Compromise is guarded by a higher
obligation, in consequence Of lis incorporation in
that instrument but it no way differs from the
other two in the circumstances which induced it,
the policy which guards it, or the consequences
which would flow from its abrogation. A prop
osition to destroy the slavery Compromises in
the Constitution, would be an open proposition 10
break up the Union; the attempt to abrogate the
Compromises of 1857 and 1920, would be viru-
al attempts to destroy the harmony of the Union,
and prepare it for dissolution by destroying the
confidence and affection in which it is founded.
| TIC hl'oOuRi COMPROMISE 10 d CuHliHuutlON
of the Ordinance of 1887 its extension to the
since acquired territory west of the Mississippi,
and no way differing from it, either in principle
or detail The Ordinance af 1857 divided the
then territory of the United States about equally
between the free and slave States the Missouri
Compramise line did the same by the additional
territory of the Uuod States, as it stood in 1920;
and in both cases it was done by ali act of
('nnnrass apI tho ccttlnpnant e dAior1tv b,t
was to last forever consider them both, with
their fugitive slave recovery clauses, and the sim
liar clause in the Constitution, as part and parcel
of the same transaction--di different articles in the
same general settlement.
The ant-slavery clause in the Ordinance of
1887, could not have been put in (as was proved
by its three years rejoction) without the lugi-
tive slave recovery claws added to it. TIE Con-
stitution could not have been formed without the
recognition of slavery in the States which chose
it, and the right Of recovering slaves fleeing to
the free States. The Missouri controversy 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 to recover fugi-
tive slaves from the part made free. Thus the
three measures are one, and the Ordinance of
1887 father to the other two. 1t led to the
adoption of the fugitive slave clause in the Con-
stitution, and, we may say. to the formation of
the Constitution itself, which could not have
been adopted without that clause, and the rec
ignition of slave property in which it was toun-
ded. This vital fact results of itself from the
history Of the case. In March, of the year 1884,
the Virginia delegation in the then Congress Of
the Confederation, headed by MIR. Jefferson and
Mr.. Munroe, conveyed the Northwestern Terri
tory to the thirteen United States. In the month
of April ensuing, the organizing mind of Mr.
Jefferson, always bent upon systems and admin
istration, brought in an Ordinance for the gov
eminent of the Territory so conveyed, with the
antislavery clause as part OF it, to take effect
in the year 1860 but without clause for the
recovery of fugitive slaves. For want of this
provision, the anti-slavery clause Was opposed
by the slaveholding States, and rejected; and
: the Ordinance was passed without it. InJuly,
of the year 1857, the Ordinance was remodeed !;
the anti-slavery clause, with the fugitive slave
recovery clause, as they now stand, were insert
, ed in it; and in that shape the Ordinance had
the unanimous vote Of every State present
eight in the wholo-and an equal number of
slave and free States present. Thus, it is clear
that the anti-slavery cluuse in the Ordinance of
1887 could not have passed without the fugitive
slave recovery clause annexed. They were in
separable 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, where the Congress of the
:, Confederation then sat- The National Conven-
ton was sitting at the same time in the city of
Philadelphia, at work upon the Federal Consti-
!, tuition. The two bodies were in constant COM
> munication with each other, and some leading
. members Gas Mr.. Madison and Gen. Hamilton1
: were members of each, and attending by turns
= in each. The Constitution was finished in Sen.
= TENDER, and received the fugitive slave recovery
clause Immediately after its insertion in the Or
dinance. 1t was the work of the same hands
i and at the same time, in both Instruments ;'and
!, it is well known that the Constitution could moi
:, have been formed without that clause. Thus
, the compromise clause in the Ordinance is lA
Their to the compromise clause in the Constitu
lion; and all three stand before me us founded
> in the same circumstances, induced by the sam,
: considerations, and directed by the same polio,
n that OF the peace. harmony, and perpetuit1
;, OF this Union. In point Of moral obligation.
- consider them equal, and resulting from condi
y lions which render them Indispensable. Two o
them have all the qualities of Compromise
1t those Of the Ordinance and of the Constitution
u u They are founded i'll agreement--in consent-il
is compact--and are as sacred and inyiolable a
y human agreements can be. The third one-tha
of the Missouri nti-slavery line-was not mad
If upon agreement. 1t was imposed by yotes-b,
v the South upon the North-ressted by the Norti
at the Thoroughbred in afterwards; and b,
II that acquiescence became binding covenan
If between both parties; and the more SO ON tn
8 South, because she imposed it.
II This brings us to the question of repeal, o
g abrogation OF these Compromises. The one il
ii the Constitution cannot he rat rid oe ,v;tbon