Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-04


thousand slaves.
There apology the circumstances Of the
try for the continuance Of slavery The original national
policy against IT. and not less tine plain language of
the treaty under which the territory had been acquired
from France.
1t proposed therefore, to incorporate in the bill
the formation of State Government pro-
vision requiring that the Constitution of the State
should contain an article providing for the abolition of
existing slavery and prohibiting the further introduce
ton of slaves.
This provision vehemently and pertinaciousy OPP
posed but finally prevailed in the House Of Representa-
tves by decided vote. In the Senate it rejected
and in consequence Of the disagreement bet-een the two
Houses the bill lost.
AT the next session Of Congress the controversy
newed with increased violence 1t was terminated at
length bya compromise Missouri was allowed to come
into the Union with slavery but section inserted in
the act authorizing her admission excluding slavery for
ever from all the territory acquired from France not in
cluded in the new State lying north Of 36o SV.
We quote the prohibitory sections
"scc BE ii further enacted, That in all that territory
coded by France TO the United States under the of
Louisiana which lies north Of $50 and 80 Of north latitude
included within the limits Of the State contemplated by
this act slavery and servude otherwise than
the OF crimes shall be and hereby forever pro-
hibited."
The question of the consttutonality of this prohbi-
ton submitted by President Monroe to his Cabinet.
John Quincy Adams then Secretary of State John O.
Calhoun Secretary of War, William H. Crawford
Secretary Of the Treasury and William Writ Attor
being from slave States gave written opinion affirm
ing its constitutionaty and thereupon the act received
the sanction of the President himself also from slave
State.
Nothing is certain in history than the fact that
Missouri could not have been admitted slave State
had not certain members from the free States been recon-
ciled to the by the incorporation of this prohbi
ton into the act of admission Nothing is certain
than that this prohibition has been regarded and accepted
by the whole country as solemn compact against the
extension OF slavery into part OF the territory acquired
from France lying north of $50 3 and not included in
the State of Missouri The act let it be ever
remembered which authorized the formation of Cons
tuition for the State without clause forbiddng slavery
consecrated beyond question and beyond honest recall
the whole remainder Of the territory freedom and free
institutions forever. For than thirty yearsdur
ing than half the period of national existence
under present iConsttuton-ths compact has been
universally regarded and acted upon nvolable Amer
law. In conformity with it Iowa admitted
free State and Minnesota has been organized as free
Territory.
1t is strange and ominous fact, well calculated to
awaken the worst appreheusons and the most fearful
forebodings of future caames that it is deliberate
ly purposed to repeal this prohibition by implication or
drectlythe latter certainly the maner way-and thus
to subvert this compact and allow slavery in all the yet
unorganized territory.
We cannot in this address, review the various pre-
fences under which it is attempted to cloak this mon
strous wrong but must not altogether omit to notice
1t is said that the Territory of Nebraska sustains the
relations to slavery did the territory acquired
from Mexico prior to 1850, and that the pro-savery
clauses of the bill necessary to carry into effect the
compromises Of that year. No assertion could b.
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 in relation to the
then unorganized portion of this territory closed in
1920 by the Missouri act containing the slavery prohb
ahaen NV rn1o
only territory acquired from France The act by which
it terminated confined by its express terms
to the territory and had relation to any other
The second acquisition was from Spain Florida, the
territory thus acquired yielded to slavery without
struggle, and almost without murmur.
The third was from Mexico. The controversy which
from this acquisition is fresh in the remembrance of
the American people Out of it sprung the acts of Con-
gress commonly known as the compromise measures Of
1850, by of which California admitted free
State while two others, organizing the Territories of
New Mexico and Utah. exposed oil the residue of the
Gently acquired territory to the invasion Of slavery.
These acts were supposed to abrogate touch
the existing exclusion Of slavery from what is called
Nebraska They applied to the territory acquired from
Mexico, and to that only. They intended set
Element of the controversy growing out OF that acqus
ton and Of that controversy only They must stand
fall by their own merits.
The statesmen whose powerful support carried the
Utah and New Mexico acts dreamed that their pro-
visions would be applied to Nebraska Even the
last session of Congress, Mr. Atchson, Of Missouri in
speech in favor of taking up the former Nebraska BILL
the morning Of the 4h Of March, 1853 said st is evil
dent that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed
So far as that question is concerned, might well
agree to the admission Of this Territory year.
five ten years hence These words could not have
fallen from this wachfu guardian of slavery had he sup
posed that this Territory mbraced by the prosavey
provisions of the compromise acts This preension had
not then been set up. 1t is papable after thought
The compromise acts themselves reute this pretension
In the third article Of the second section of the joint
solution for annexng Texas to the United States it is
expressly declared that Gin such State States shall
be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri
promise nc slavery involuntary serytude except for
crime shall be prohibited -" and in the act for organic
ing New Mexico and settling the boundary Of Texas
proyso incorporated the motion of Mr. Mason. of
Virginia, which distinctly preserves this prohibition, and
fous the bareaced pretension that oil the territory of
the United States whether south north Of the Missouri
compromised is eopen to slavery 1t is follows
Provided That nothing herein contained shall be con-
rued to impair qualify any thing contained in the third
article Of the second section Of the joint resolution for
ing Texas to the United States approved March either
regards the number Of States that may hereafter be formed
out of the State Of Texas or otherwise"t
Here proof beyond controversy that the principle of
the Missouri act prohibiting slavery north Of $50 30 far
from being abrogated the compromise acts express
ly affirmed and that the proposed repeal Of this proh-
biton, instead Of being affirmation of the compromise
acts is repeal of very prominent provision of the most
important act of the series 1t is soemnly declared in
the very compromise acts that nothing herein contained
shall be construed 10 impair qualify the prohibition Of
slavery north Of 36o 30 and yet in the face OF this de-
caraton that sacred prohibition is said to be ovcrhrown
Can presumption further go? To all who in any way
upon these compromises ecomMend this exposition
The preence therefore, that the territory covered by
the positive prohibition of 1920 sustans similar relation
to slavery with that acquired from Mexico covered by no
prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or Mex
CAN law and that the compromises of 1850 the in
corporation OF the prosavery clauses of the Utah and