The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-16

North Carolina, aware that in the absence Of
any stipulation TO the contrary Slavery would
be prohibited in the coded territory, in rnps,l-
ance of the established policy Of the Govern.
n,cnt, introduced into her deed of eession en-
express provision that the anti-slavery article
of the Ordinance of 1887 should not be applied
toit. Il may be said that Congress should have
refused to accept the cession. agree in that
opinion. But Slavery already existed in that
district as part of the State of North Carolina
and it 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 and the Mississippi
and the action of Congress accepting it. The
acceptance of both Of these cessions as well as
the adoption and rc-enactment by Congress Of
the slave laws of Maryland for the District OF
Columbia, were departures from original pol
icy but they indicated no purpose to establish
any geographical line They were the result
of the gradually increasing Indifference to the
claims OF Freedom, plainly perceivable in the
history Of the country after the adoption of the
Constitution. Luther Martin had complains.l
in 17sS-1whcn our own liberties wero 81
stake, we warmly felt for the common rights
of man. The danger being thought TO be
J
growing more and more iusensible to those
rights IL was this growing insensibilisy
which led to these departures from original
policy. Afterwards, in 1903, Louisiana was
acquired from France. Did we then hasseS-+s,,
establish geographical lno! No. sir. Ia
Louisiana, as in the Territories acquired from
Georgia and North Carolina, Congress re-
Trained from applying the policy of 1897; Con
gross did not interfere with existing Slavery
Congress contented itself with enactinents pro-
hibitiDg absolutely, 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, no restriction was imposed upon her
in respect to Slavery. II this time, there were
slaves all along up the west bank of the Mis-
sissippi as far as st. Louis and perhaps even
above.
10 1918 Missouri applied for admission into
the Union. The free States then awoke to the
danger of the total overthrow of the original
policy of the country. They saw that no State
had taken measures for the abolition of Slave
ry since the adoption Of the Constitution They
saw that the feeble attempt to restrict the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into the territories acquir-
cd from Georgia and from France had utterly
failed. They insisted, therefore, that in tho
formation of Constitution, the people of the
proposed State should embody in it a provis-
ion for the gradual abolition of existing Slave
nv, and prohibiting the further introduction of
slaves.
BY this time the slave interest had become
strong, and the slave power Was pretty firmly
established. Tie demand of the FREQ States
was vehemently contested.
a bill preparatory to the admission Of Mis-
somi containing the proposed restriction, was
passed by the House and sent to the Senate
In that body the bill was amended by striking
out the restriction the House refused to con-
cur in the amendment; the Senate insisted
uron it, and the bill failed At the ne xt ses-
sion of Congress the controversy was renewed.
In the mean timo Maino had been severed from
Massachusetts, had adopted Constitution,
and had applied for admission into the Union.
A bill providing for her admission passed the
House, and was sen! to the Senate. This bill
was amended in the Senate by lacking to il a
bill for the admission of Missouri, and by tho
addition Of a section prohibiting Slavery in all
the territory acquired by Louisiana north of SO
deg 80 min. The House refused to concur in
these amendments, and the Senate asked for a
Committee of Conference, to which the House
agreed. During the progress of these events,
the House. after passing the Ma Main 1s ILL Ind
embodying the restriction upon Slavery in the
State. The Senate amended the bill by stri-
king out the restriction, and by inserting the
section prohibiting Slavery north Of SO deg 80
min.
This section came from the South, through
Mr.. Thomas, the Senator from Illinois, who
had uniformly voted with the slave States
against all restriction. 1t was adopted On tie
18th OF February, 1920, az an amendment to
the Maine and Missouri bill, by 81 ayes,
against 10 nOes.*
MIR HUN TER | think that the provision
passed without u division in the Senate
MIR. CHASE. The Senator is mistaken.
Fourteen Senators from the slave States, and
twenty from the free States voted for that
Eight from the former and two
from the latter, voted against it. No vote by
ayes and noes was taken when the same
amendment was engrafted upon the separate
Missouri bill, a few days later; the sense Of
the Senate having been asccrtained by the for.
mer vote.
This was the condition Of matters when the
Committee Of Conference, for which the Sem
ate had asked, made their report. The mem
bers of the committee from the Senate wore
of course, favorable to the Senate amendments
In the House. the Speaker, HENRY CLAY, WAS
also in favor Of them, and he had the appoint
ment Of the committee. OF course he took
care, as he has since Informed the country, to
constitute the committee in such manner and
of such persons as would be most likely to &C.
cure their adoption. The result was what
might have been expected. The committee
that the Senate should rccedc
- l.. l.
that the House should concur in the amend
ments to the Missouri bill. Enough members
from the free States were found tn turn the
scale against the proposed restriction of Sla-
very in the State and the amendment of the
Senate striking it out was concurred in by
ninety yoas, against eighty-seven nays
From this moment, successful opposition to
the intl oduction of Missouri with Slavery was
Nothing remained but to deter
mine the character of the residue Of the Louis
ian. acquisition; and the amendment prohib--
iting Slavery north of 36 deg. 80 min was con-
Cured in by one hundred aud thirty four yeas
against forty-two nays. OF the yeas, thirty
eight We're from slave and ninpty-six from free
States; oil the nays, thirty-scven were from
slave States, and five from free. Among those
who voted with the maj ority was MIR. LowNDEs,
OF South Carolina whose vote, estimated by
the worth and honor Of the mau, oGtwcisb5
many oppOsites.
Now, for the first time. was a geographical
line established between Slavery and Freedom
in this country.
Let us pause, and ascertain upon what prin-
ciplc this Compromise was adopted, and to
what territory it applied. The controversy
was between the two great sections Of sssss
Union The subject was a vast exteat Of almost
unoccupied country, embracing the whole ter
ritory west of the Mississippi. 1t was territory
in which slave law existed at the time of ac-
QUESTION. The compromise section contained
no provision allowing Slavery south Of So deg.
80 min. IL could never have received the sane
ton Of Congress il it had. The CONTINUANCE OF