The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-02
We anote the prohibitory section: ~

We quote the prohibitory section: (1)
"SEc. g. Be it further enacted, That in all tina
Territory ceded By France To the United State.
under the name of Louisiana, which lies nortl
of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes O
north latitude, not included within the limit
of the State contemplated by this act, SLAYER,
AND INVOLUNTARY sERvITuDE, otherwise thai
as the punishment Of crimes SHALL BE AND /
HEREBY FOREVER PROHIBITED"
The question of the constitutionality of thi
prohibition was submitted by President Mon
ROE TO his Cabinet. John Quincy Adams wa
then Secretary of State; John c. Calhoun wa
Secretary of War: William H. Crawford wa
Secretary of the Treasury and William Wiz
was Attorney General Each of these eminen
men, three of them being from Slave States
gave written opinion affirming its oonstitu
tionslity, and thereupon the act received th,
sanction of the President, himself, also, from
Slave State.
Nothing is more certain in history than th.
fact that Missouri could not have been admit
ted as Slave State, had not certain member
from the Free States been reoonciied to tn,
measure by the incorporation of this prohibition
into the act of admission. Nothing is NOR.
certain than that this prohibition has been re
| garded and accepted by the whole country a
|
very into any part of the Territory acquired from
| France, lying north of SO deg. 80 min, and MOI
| included in the new State Of Missouri. The same
act-let it be ever remembered-which au
thorized the formation of Constitution for that
State, without clause forbdding Slavery, con.
seorated, beyond question and beyond honest
recall the whole remainder Of the Territory to
Freedom and Free Institutions forever For
more than thirty years-during more than hall
the period of our National Existence under ouI
present Constitution-this compact has been
universally regarded and acted upon as invio-
liable American Law. In conformity with it,
Iowa was admitted as Free State, and Min
nesota has been organized as a Free Territory
1t is strange and ominous fact well calcu-
lated to awaken the worst apprehensions and
the most fearful forebodngs of future calsmities,
that it is now deliberately purposed to repeal
this prohibition, by implication or directly-the
latter, certainly the manlier way-and thus to
subvert this compact and allow Slavery in all
the yet unorganised territory.
We cannot, in this address, review the va
rious pretences under which it is attempted to
cloak this INDUSTRIOUS wrong; but we must not
altogether omit to notice one.
1t is said that the Territory of Nebraska sus-
teins the same relations to Slavery as did the
and that the pro slavery clauses of the Bill
are necessary to carry into effect the Compro-
misses of that year
No assertion could be more groundless
Three acquisitions of Territory have been
made by Treaty The first was from France.
Out of this Territory have been created the
three slave States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Missouri, and the single free State of Iowa
The controversy, which arose in relation to the
then unorganized portion Of this Territory, was
closed in 1920, by the Missouri act, containing
the Slavery prohibition, as has been already
stated This controversy related only to terri
tory acquired from France. The act, by which
it was terminated, was confined, by its own ex.
press terms, to the same Territory and had no
relation to any other.
The second acquisition was from Spain
Florida, the Territory thus acquired, was yield
ed to Slavery without a struggle, and almost
without murmur.
The third was from Mexico The contro-
versy which arose from this acquisition is fresh
in the remembrance of the American People
Out of it sprung the acts of Congress- CON-
monty known as the Compromise measures of
1850, by one of which California was admitted
as a Free State; while two others organizing
the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, ex-
posed all the residue Of the recently acquired
Territory to the invasion Of Slavery
These acts were never supposed to abrogate
or touch the existing exclusion of Slavery from
what is now called Nebraska They applied
to the Territory acquired from Mexico and to
that only. They were intended as o settle
ment of the controversy growing out of that
acquisition, and of that controversy only. They
must stand or fall by their own merits
The statesmen, whose powerful support car
ried the Utah and Now Mexico acts never
dreamed that their provisions would ever be ap-
piled to Nebraska. Even at the last session of
Congress Mr.. ATCHIsoN, of Missouri, in
speech in favor of taking up the former Nebras-
ka Bill, on the morning of the 4th of March,
Compromise cannot be repealed. So far as
that question is concerned, we might as we'll
agree to the admission of this Territory now,
as next year, or Ave or ten years hence" These
words could not have fallen from this watchful
guardian CT Slavery, had he supposed that this
Territory was embraced by the pro-slavery
provisions of the Compromise Acts. This pre-
tension had not then been set up 1t is pal
pable after thought.
The Compromise Acts themselves refute this
pretension. In the third article of the second
section of the Joint Resolution for annexing Tex
as to the United States it is expressly declared
that I" in such State or States as shall be formed
out of said Territory north of said Missouri
Compromise line, Slavery or involuntary servi-
tude, except for crime, shall be prohibited )" ~
and in the Act for organizing New Mexico and
settling the boundary of Texas, proviso was
incorporated, on the motion of MIR. MASON, of
Virginia, which distinctly preserves this prohi-
bition, and flouts the bare. faced pretension
that all the territory Of the United States,
vIo<l &c
promise line, is to DO open to Slavery. 1t ID as
follows:
"Prouided, That nothing herein contained
shall be Construed to impair or qualify ANY
THING contained in the third article of the sec
ond section of the Joint Resolution for annex
ing Texas to the United States, approved March
1, 1845, either as regards the number of States
that may hereafter be formed out Of the State
Of Texas, OR OTHERWISE" az
Here is proof, beyond controversy, that the
principle of the Missouri Act prohibiting
Slavery north of SO deg. 80 min, far from
being abrogated by the Compromise Acts, is
expressly affirmed and that the proposed re-
peal of this prohibition, instead of being an af-
frmation of the Compromise Acte, is a repeal
of very prominent provision of the most i'm
portant act of tho series. 1t is solemnly de-
clared in the very Compromise Acts that
nothing herein contained shall be construed TO
impair or qualify" the prohibition of Slavery
north of SO deg 80 min., and yet, in the face
of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is
said to be overthrown. Can presumption for
Their go! To all who, in any way, loan upon
these Compromises, we commend this exposi-
ton.
The pretencea, therefore, that the Territory,
covered by the positive prohibition of 1920, sus-
tains a similar relation to Slavery with that
acquired from Mexico covered by no prohibi-