Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-05-05

| them.
THE THREE SLAVERY COMPROMISES.
The Missouri Compromise Of
1920 was the partitioning between
the free and slave states, of great
province, taking the character of a
perpetual settlement; and CHASING
with the two great compromises
which gave us the ordinance of
July ID, 1887, and the federal con-
stitution of September IL, of the
same year. There are three slavery
compromises in our history, which
connect themselves with the foun-
dation and preservation of this
Union. First, the territorial parti-
ton ordinance of 1887, with its
clause for the recovery of fugitive
slaves secondly, the contemporan-
eous constitutional recognition of
slavery in the states which choose
to have it, with the fugitive slave
recovery clause in the same instru-
ment thirdly, the Missouri partit-
ton line of 1890, with the same
clause annexed for the recovery Of
fugitive slaves.
All three of the compromises are
part and parcel of the same policy ;
and neither of them could have been
formed without the other, nor either
of them without the fugitive slave
recovery clause incorporated in it.
The Anti-slavery clause in the or
dinance of 1857 could not have been
adopted Gas was proved by its three
years rejection) without the fugit-
i've slave recovery clause added to it;
the constitution could not have been
formed without its recognition of
slavery in the states which chose il,
and the guaranty of the right to re-
cover slaves fleeing into the free
states; the Missouri controversy
could not have been settled without
a partition of Louisiana between
free and slave soil; and that parti-
ton could not have been made with
out 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 constitutional COM
promise is guarded by higher OBJ
lagation in consequence of its incor-
poration in that instrument but il
in no way differs from the other two
IN circumstances hieAinduced it,
the policy which guards it, or the
consequences which would flow
from its abrogation. A proposition
TO destroy the slavery compromises
in the constitution would be an open
proposition to break up the Union
the attempt to abrogate the com.
promises of 1887 and 1920 woulc
be virtual attempts to destroy the
harmony Of the Union, and prepare
it for dissolution, by destroying the
confidence and affection in which il
is founded.
The Missouri Compromise OF
1920 is a continuation OF the ordin-
ance of l7S7-its extension TO the
same acquired territory West of the
Mississippi, and no way differing
from it either in principle or detail
The ordinance of 1887 divided the
then territory of the United State.
about equally between the free and
slave states; the Missouri Compro.
mise line did the same by the addi-
tional territory of the United States
as it stood in 1920; and in both
cases it was done by act OF Con.
gress, and was the settlement of {
difficulty which was to last forever
| consider them both, with then
fugitive slave recovery clauses, ant
the similar clause in the constitution
as part aud parcel of the same
transaction-diferent articles in thu
same general settlement.
The anti-slavery clause in the or
dinance of 1857 could not have
been put in las was proved by it
three years rejection) without tn
fugitive slave recovery clause adde'
to it. The constitutioncould not hav
been formed without the recognition
Of slavery in the states which chos
it, and the right of recovering slave
fleeing to the free states. The Mis-
souri, Compromise could not hay'
been settled except by the prohibi
ton of slavery IN the upper half o
the territory of Louisianr; and tho
prohibition could not have been OBJ
tanned without the right TO recove
fugitive slaves from the part mad
free.
Thus, the three measures are one
aud the ordinance of 1887 father t.
the other two. Ii led TO the adop
ton of the fugitive slave clause il
the constitution, and we may say
to the formation of the constitution
itself, which could not have been a
dopted without that clause, and tn,
recognition of slave property il
which it was founded. This vita
fact results of itself from the histo
ry of the case. In March of TN,
year l7S4, the Virginia delegation
headed by Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.
Monroe, conveyed the Northwestern
territory to the thirteen U. S. Ii
the month of April ensuing, the or
ganlzing mind of Mr.. Jefferson, al
ways bent upon systems and admin