Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-03-15

were necessary TO retain the provisol in the ord-
nance. II failed, consequently precisely as
nroyiao in a treaty. must fail unless il receive the
votes of two thirds Of the members Of the Senate.
Sir, II that doctrine Of the rights Of majorites, Of
which we hear so much and see in actual practice
80 little, had then been recognized-if the wishes
of a minority of the States and Of the majority Of
the delegates, had prevailed-if the almost uni
yersai sentiment Of the people had been respect
ed, the question Of slavery in this country would
have been settled that day forever. All the ter
ritOFy acquired by the Union would have been
covered with the impenetrable egis OF freedom.
Rut then. as now there was a slave interest in
the country-then, as now, there was slave pow
er. The interest was comparatively small, and
, the power comparatively weak but they were
sufficient, under the then existing Government, to
defeat the proviso, and transfer the great question
Of slavery to future discussion. The facts which
have detailed, however, are sufficient to show
what was the general sentiment, and what was
the original policy Of the country in respect to
slavery. II was one of limitation, discourage
ment, repression.
What next occurred! The subject Of organ-
zIng this Territory remained before Congress-
Mr.. jefferson, in 1885, went to France. His
great influence was longer felt In the councils
of the country, but his proviso remained, and in
1887 was Incorporated into the ordinance for the
government of the territory northwest of the river
Ohio. beg the Senate to observe, that this ter
ritory was at that moment the whole territory be-
longing to the United States. Twill not trouble
the Senate by reading the proviso Of the ordi-
nance. tits enough to say that the Jefferson Pro-
yiso Of 1884, coupled with provision saving to
the original States of the Union right to reclaim
fugitiyes from service, was incorporated into the
ordinance, nnd became u fundamental law over
every foot of national territory. What was the
policy indicated by this action by the fathers Of
the Republic! Was il that of indfferentsm be-
tween slavery and freedom! that of establishing
geographical line, on one side of which there
should Se liberty, and on the other side slavery,
both equally under the protection anhcountenance
of the Government! No, sir the .lurthest thing
possible from that. 1t was the policy Of exciu-
ding slavery from all national territory. 1t was
adopted, too, under remarkable circumstances
The territory over which it was established was
claimed by Virginia, in right of her charter, and
in right of conquest. The gallant George Rogers
Clarke, one of the bravest and noblest sons of
that State. had, with small body of troops,
raised under her authority, invaded and conquered
the territory. Slavery was already there, under
the French colonial law, and also if the claim of
Virginia was well founded, under the laws of
that State. These facts prove that the first appl-
cation of the original policy of the Government
converted slave territory into free territory.
Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the
maintenance of this policy in time to come! l
once upon this floor, adverted to fact, which has
not attracted 80 much attention, in my judgment,
as its importance deserves. 1t is this While the
congress was framing this ordiDance-almost the
last act of its illustrious iabors-the convention
which framed the Constitution was sitting in Phil
adelphia. Several gentlemen were members OF
both bodies, and at the time this ordinance was
adopted, do proposition in respect to slavery had
been discussed in the convention, except that
which resulted In the establishment of the three
tfths clause. 1t is impossible to say, with abso-
lutte certainty that the incorporation Of that clause
into the Constitution, which gave the slave States
representation for three ths of their slaves, had
anything to do with the unanimous vote by which
the proviso was inSrafted upon the ordinance; but
the coincidence is remarkable, and justies the in
ference that the facts were connected. At all
events, the proviso can hardly fail to have been
regarded as affording guarantee for the perpetu-
alton of the policy which it established.
Already seven of the original thirteen States had
taken measures for the abolition of slavery within
their limits, and were regarded free States. Six
only Of the original States were regarded as slave
States. Phe ordinance provided for the creation
of FIVE new free States, and thus secured the dec
ded ascendency Of the free Suites in the Confed-
Grafton. The perpetuation of slavery even in any
State, it is quito obvious, was not then even
thought of.
And now, sir, let me ask the attention of the
Senate to the Constitution itself. That charter of
our Government was not formed upon pro-slavery
principles, but upon ant-slavery principles. Itno
where recognizes any right of property in man. 1t
no where confers upon the Government which it
Creates any power to establish or continue slave
ry. Mr.. Madison himself records, in his Report Of
tha hat nf tho
ton, that it was "wrong to admit in the Constitu-
ton the idea that there could be property in men,"
Every clause in the Constitution which refers in
any way to slaves speaks of them as persons, and
excludes the idea of property. In some of the
States, s true, slaves were regarded property.
The language of Mr.. Justice Mclean on this
point is very striking. He says:
''That cannot dvest them of the leading and
controlling quality of persons by which they are
designated in the Constitution. The character Of
property is given them by the local law. This
law is respected, and all rights under it pro-
tected By the Federal authorities. But the Con-
stitution acts upon slaves as persons, and not as
property"
Well, sir, not only was the idea Of property in
men excluded from the Constitution; not only
was there no power granted to Congress to au-
thorize or enable any man to hold another prop
erty, but an amendment was afterwards ingrafted
upon the Constitution, which especially denied all
such power.
The history of that amendment is worth atten-
tion. The State which the Senators from Virgin
ia so ably represent on this floor was of those
which Immediately after the adoption of the Con-
stitution proposed amendments of 1t. One of the
amendments which she proposed was this:
"No freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or
deprived Of his freehold liberties, or franchises, or
outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of
his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the
land"
Did Congress adopt that amendment! No. sir;
1t adopted apd proposed to the States very differ
eRt amendment. 1t was this:
sNo person = & y shall be deprived of lifc, lib
erty, or property, without due process of law.''
Now, sir, in my judgment, this prohibition was
intended as comprehensive guarantee of person.
al freedom and denies absolutely to Congress the