The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-02-15

I Why should any man, North or South, object tc
ii will especially address the arsumcnt to IN,
ogn section OF country, and ask why should any
nor; hern man object to this principle' Ii you
will review the history of the slavery question
| in the U. S /, you will see that al! the great
suits in behalf of free institutions Which have
/ been worked out have been accomplished
| by the OPERATION of This p.incip!-, and by i
| alone.
! When these S a,es were colonies OF Grea
! Britain, every one OF them was slayeEo.d'ns
province. When the constitution Of the U. S
| was formed, twelve nut of the thirteen were
saveholding States. Since that time, six o
those States have become free How has thi.
! been effected! Was il hy virtue o. addition agia
ton in Congress- Was it in oh,d c"ce to the
dictates OF the federal ,yernmrnt' S,t al all
! but they have beco no free Saies uu6 r The
silent, but sure and irresistible, working of thai
great principle Of self government whici, teache,
every people TO do that which ihe interests Of
| Themselves and their ,sterlty morally 4 ID pecu
| niary may require.
Under the OPP ration Of this prncip'e New
! hampshire became free, while South Carolina
| continued to hold slaves Connec icut abolished
sllvcry, while Georgia held on to it Rhode
Island abandoned the lnsituu n, while May
land preserved it New York, New Jcrsy, and
| Pennsy lvania abolished slavery while Virgins,
North Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did
they do il at your bidding' Did they do ii a,
the dctaion Of the federal government, DID
they do it in obedience Of any OF your Wilmoi
provisos ordinances Of 81? Not at all
They did it by virtue OF Their righ. as tleenen
under constitution of the u. S. 10 establish and
| abolish such institutions as they thou ,h their
own good required.
Let me ask you, where have yau succeeded
| in excluding slavery by an act Of Congress from
| one inch of the American soil? You may tel
| me that you did it in the North. west Territory
| by the ordinance of 1857 | will show you by
the history of the country that you did not ac-
| compltsh any such thing. You prohibited sla-
very there by law, but you did no exclude it in
fact. Illinois was part Of the North ives,
Territory. With the exception Of few French
| and white settlements, it was vast wilderness
! filled with hostile savagts, when the ordinance.
| of 1857 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois
was organized into a territorial government i,
| established and protected slavery, and maintain
ed it in spite Of your ordinance, and in d fiance
OF its express prohibition. 1t is curious fact
that so long as Congress said the Territory oil
Illinois should not have slavery, she actually had
| it, and on the very day when you withdrew
your congressional prohibition, the ople OF
Illinois, of their free will and accord, pro-
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory
with your ordinance, your Wlmpt proviso
because the people there regarded it as an inva-
| sion OF theirrights. They regarded it as usur.
patton on the part OF tie federal government
! They regarded it Is violative OF the great prn-
cip!es OF self government, and they determined
that they would never submit even to have free
dom so long as you forced it upon them.
| Nor must it be said that slavery was abolish
ed in the constitution OF Illinois in order to be
admitted into the Union as S ate in com, lance
with the ordinance of 1857, for they did no such
thing. In the constitution with VIII ch the peo
pie of Illinois were admitted into the Union
they absolutely violated, dsregarded and repu
dated your ordinance. The ordinance sa tina,
! slavery should be forever prohibited in that
| country. The constitution with which you re-
ceived them into the Union as State said tina
all slaves then in the State should return slaves
| for lie, and that all persons born Of slave par
ents after certain day should be free at Ger
tain age, and that all persons born in The S ate
| after erain other day should be free from,
the time of their birth. Thus their State con-
stitutIon, as well as their territorial legislation
repudia'ed your ordinance. Illinois, therefore
is case in point to prove that whenever you
have attempted 10 dictate institutions to any
part OF the U. 3. you have failed. The same
erence to the Territory of Indiana, where there
were many slaves during The time OF its terri.
torial existence, and believe, also, there were
a few in the territory of Ohio
b., sir, these abolition confedera,es 10 the r
manifesto have also referred TO The wonderful
| results Of their policy in the State of Iowa an
| the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they
happened to be in fault as to the laws Of the
land The act to organize TIE Territory oi
| Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people OF
| Iowa were allowed TO do as they pl ased under
the territorial government, for the Oh sccion oi
that act provided that the legislative Authority
should extend to all righ,iul subjects If Iegisl-
ton, except as to the spositlnn of the public
lands, and taxes in certain cases, but not excep
ting slavery. Ii may, however, be SAID by some
| that slavery was prohibited in Iowa by virtue OF
| that clause in the Iowa act which declared the
| laws If Wisconsin to be in force therein, in a
! much as the ordinance OF 1857 was one OF the
| laws of Wisconsin, if, however, they say Ibis
| hey defeat their object, because the very ac,
which transfers the laws Of Wisconsin t. Iowa
| and makes them of force therein, also provides
| that the same subject to be altered, modified
or repealed by the terii,oria! legislature If IVA
| Iowa there fore was left to d" as sh- pleased
Iowa when she came 10 form consItu ion and
| State government, preparatory To ad'nissi n
and slave Institutions calmly, dispas,!ona ely,
withou, any restraint or dictallon and deter min
ed that it would be to the in,eres, o! her people,
with climate and with productions, tu prohibit
slavery; and hence Iowa became free State
by virtue Of this great principle Of allowing the
people to do as they please, and not IN ODE
dience to any federal command
The abo!itonsts are also in the habit Of re.
ferrlns to Oregon as another instance of The
triumph of the abolition policy. There, again,
they have overlooked misrepresen,ed the
history Of the country. Sir, it is well known,
or it it is not, it ought to be, that for about
twelve years you Jailed to give Oregon any go
vernment OF protection, and during that period
the inhabitants of that country established CO.
vernment Of their own, and by virtue Of their
own laws, passed by their own representatives
before you extended your jurisdiction over them,
prohibited slavery by unanimous vote. Sia-
very was prohibited there by the action of the
people themselves, and not by virtue Of any L.
gis!atsn of Congress.
1t is true that in the midst Of the tornado
which swept over the country in 1913, lS49 and
1850, provision was forced into the Oregon
bill prohibiting slavery in that Territory, but
that only goes TO show that the object Of those
who pressed it was not SO much to establish
free institutions as to gain political advantage
by giving an ascendency to their peculiar doc
trines in the laws of the land, for slavery hav-
ing been already prohibited there, and no man
proposing to establish ii, what the necessi'y
tor insulting the people of Oregon by saying in
your law that they should not do that which
they had unanimously said they did not wish
to do? That was the only effect of your leg
islation SO far as the Territory Of Oregon was
concerned.
How was it in regard to California Every
one of these abolition contederates who have
thus arraigned me and the Committee on Terri
tories before the countrywide have msrepre
scented our position, and misquoted the law and
the fact-predicted thai, unless Congress inter
posed by law and prohibited slavery in Califor
MIA, it would inevitably become a slaveholdng
State. Congress did not interfere. Congress
did not prohibit slavery. There was no enact.
ment on the subject, bat the people formed a
State constitution, and they prohibited slavery
Mr.. WELLER. The vote was unanimous
in the convention of California for prohibition
Mr.. DOUGLAS. So twas in regard to
Utah and New Mexico In 1850, we, who re-
sisted any attempt to force institutions upon the
people of those Territories inconsistent with
their wishes and their right to decide fcr them
selves. were denounced as SLAYER; propagan-
Lists 10 .x(, r.