Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1854-08-24
EBENsBURG, AUGUST 24, 1854.

slave labor. LII Is our hrm belief that slave
ry will not enter those territories Those who
are sensitive on this point should not close
their eyes to the evidence that surrounds them.
The indications are all opposed to its extern
sion to that country. Such is the belief of
vccated and voted for the Nebraska and Kan
sas bill, as well as those who voted against it,
Mr.. Douglas said:
| Il do not believe there is man in Con-
gress who thinks it would be permanently a
slave-holding country; have no idea that it
could +"
Mr. Badger said
! 81 have no more idea of seeing a slave po-
/ pulation in either of them (Nebraska or Kan
sas) than have of seeing it in the state of
| Massachusetts.
Mr. Edward Everett said:
Il am quite sure everybody admits that
this is not to be a slave-holding region or
state"
ssDoes any man believe that you will have
slave holding State in Kansas or Nebraska?
1 confess that for moment, L permitted such
! an illusion to rest upon my mind"
Mr. Bell said, that as respects the South,
sit was a contest for mere abstraction"
Mr. Benton said in his first speech against
the bill
The question of slavery in these terrific
I ries, if thrown open to territorial action, will
| be a question of numbers question of the
majority for or against slavery; and what
chance would the shareholders have in such
contest? No chance at all The slave
emigrants will be outnumbered and compelled
to play at most unequal game, not only in
point of numbers, but also in point of the
States
In his second speech, Mr.. Benton again
said
Il believe in the futility of this bill-its
absolute futility in the slaveholding States,
and that not single slave Will ever be held
in Kansas or Nebraska under it, even admit
ting it to be passed"
Gen. Houston said:
There was no more probability of slave
ry, being introduced into these territories
| than into Illinois"
| Mr.. Seward said
Il feel quite sure that slavery at most can
get nothing more than Kansas while Nebras-
ka the wider region will escape, for the rea-
| son that its soil and climate are uncongenial
with the staples of slave culture-rice, sugar,
cotton and tobacco. Moreover, since the pub
I lie attention has been so well and so effectua.
| ly directed towards the subject, l cherish
hope that slavery will not be able to gain a
| fOothold even III Kansas.
! But to render assurance double sure, we
have even a stronger opinion from Judge Pol
| lock himself, the Wing candidate for Cover
nor, who says in letter dated June 18th,
| 1854 Slavery can have no legal existence
in those territories, either by act of Congress,
or under the false pretence of popular sove-
reignty."
1T may in fact be safely said that of all
the acquisitions of territory from Mexico,
there will not be slave state added to the
| Union, and that the territory embraced in the
Louisiana purchase not already admitted will
come in as free States.
1t should also be borne in mind, that any
| territory that the United States may hereafter
acquire must be South of 36d. 30m., and that
this principle of popular sovereignty may
drive the institution farther south than any
positive act of Congress could. Nor should it
be forgotten that the Introduction of slavery
north of Sod so min. is a virtual dedication
of the territory south of that line for slave pur-
poses This has been the NOR al influence of
such legislation, and it would no doubt con-
tinue to have that effect 1t would in all prob
ability have been a happy event for the coun-
try had this doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the territories been adopted in 1920. We
should most likely have had larger proper
ton of free states than we now have.
The Missouri line was never a fayorite
measure with the old Democratic statesmen,
1t suited temporary purpose, and quoted
agitation for time, but it was manifcstly
wrong in principle, and legislation of dang
erous character, calculated to divide the
country into geographical sections, and create
dissensions and divisions among the States
and the people.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
.sThis Missouri question, by geographical
line of division, is the most portentous one
that I ever have contemplated"
In 1920 he wrote to John Holmes the
following:
"a geographical line coinciding with a
marked principle, mora. and political, once
conceived and held up to the angry passions
of men, will never be obllterated."
James Madison said:
Il must own that l have always leaned to
! the belief, that the restriction was not within
the true scope of the Constitution"
James Monroe said:
1.-The proposed restriction as to the terri
tories which are to be admitted into the
Union. if not III direct violation of the Con-
stitution, is repugnant to its principles"
We might swell the list of authorities on
this same point, from eminent American
statesmen, living and dead
1t is difficult to force from the mind the
belief that this whole subject Of slavery in the
territories is greatly magnifed. The right of
a sovereign state to control this subject is not
| disputed even by abolitionists. The right to
establish or abolish the institution is admitted.
The only effect that the legislation of Congress
can possibly have must be confined to the ter
| Of tate