The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1855-10-13

question which it is earnestly hoped ever,
citizen will thoroughly consider before Ia,
lends himself to a movement so conSpicuou.
and alarming as that journal advocates, tC
wit the formation OF a great northern sec
tional party. The question is this:
"Ihe great 9pCstiO0 IS nat Is The south
ptcoSed, bHi, IS ne H0rM riyht:'
We agree TO this form Of putting the is.
sue. Is Tut Nouu RIGHT? Is it right in
forming party for national purposes in
which the citizens uf fifteen states in the
Union cannot enroll thcms .yc-E I.i, riyht
IN making the basis Of tai, party TO Dc an
attack on one Of thr great interests. tac
slavery interest, which, by Ia, constitution.
vas lcit To- be dealt with by the states where
it exists: 1t is fact that these slave stat, S
refused to 20 into union with the free
states on the basis Of the international law.
that a slave reaching tree country became
free; but stipulated that the fugitive should
be returned; and this was, prior to the con-
stitution, put into the northwestern Ordi-
nance. With this in view, is it rigAt for
the north to say that no slave shall be re-
claimed from its soil; Is it any more right
than this interest, n minority interest, should
be attackcd-in spite Of the state right lin
itation-than IT would be if the navigation
interest, or the manufacturing intcrcSt-both
minority iutcrcsts--shouid be attacked? In
word is the north night in trying to sever
the iraternal ties that connect the south and
the north in the grand old common bond Of
country; We earnestly hope that each pat.
riotc citizen will, in thc feeling of a Wash
ington patriotism-at least as near to it as
he can gct-put the question, l. the north
right in all this?
10 show more clearly in what position
the north has been, let US go back little
and state question with scrupulous histor-
zeal cXactnc,s. Bearing in mind that the
northwestern ordinance prohibiting slavery.
was passed before the adoption of the pres.
cnt constitution, we remark, that from 1883
up to 1920, M M~ ros yoysei bg congre,y tn
Tel"tto" 10 " iTod'bH'on n sacDy in tie
Territories Qfthc intcd Sldi,6: a,,d M siaie
"os crctndd trom the Union m oreOunt If
Shgcyy. il is true discussions arose ON TIN,
subject in congress Thus Illinois aud In.
diana, when territories, passed slavery laws
wc mana h'r. recognEug and yr0tecting
s,accry, notwithstanding the northwestern
ordinance aud ~hcu Illinois, in 1913, came
in as a state, objection was raised to her al.
mission on TINS ground, bat it was not sus.
tanned. We state t.icts that cannot be sue.
ccs,lu,Iy con,"oycryd and repeat that
from 1859 to lo-p no prohlb.,gry law was
passed relative to slavery, and no state was
excluded on account Of slavery.
Ia lslI-2p, the north took the position,
that Missouri should not be admitted into
the Union without having 4 restriction nut
upon her prohibiting her from allowing
slavery 70 exist wit in her limits and the
north announced this determination in rcso.
lutions passed by, We think, nearly every
northern legislature. And in this manner
the united north stood upon the position
that congress had the power to enact a per.
pctual prohibition on a sovereign state
Was the north riyht in taking this posi-.
ton; 70 answer this fully would require
elaborate argument; for the considerations
bearing On il were so wcighty as 10 involve
the issue, whether there should be a contin
uaucc oi the old union Of c0-cQua. states. or
whether new union should be commenced
Of vy,r,,r Or i!'trlor states. Rather than
20 over Ills ground, wc prefer To state, that
statesmen Il, Iiluslrious ~ the country has
produced, went into the argument, apd have
left on record answers to questions. was the
north right 10 the position It took, T. e. of In.
s.stlns on prohibition cha sovereign state.
These answers were given by President. def
i.rsgu, Madison, Monroe. john .. Adams.
Jackson and Harrison, by host oG states.
men from Henry Clay aud j. e. Calhoun t.
those fan inferior TO them in tale Is and re-
putatoU, and these are all to the point that
the North was mt rigt, We challenge CON
TFaTI7 yT5H on tins point " affirm that the
opinions OF all the great men whose names
We have gwen, are directly opposed TO the
doctrine that t0H3rss ht, py,s,r ~ ilaya.r
Il rl'trtri'DD on a sovereign .a.c. They
pronounce such restrictions to- be Uacou.tt.
t"i,DH1L II the Judgment, Of these patriots
and statesmen have weight, they shuw Tat
10 l~lg-2p, the whole north stood upon
ground that was not tnnab.c; il was ground
marked out by camor passion. dcma.og.
ism, and bot hy reason. Judgment, and re-
gard 60 tun obligations tpa common country.
We now return from the past to the pre-
sent, aud repeat, that nothing can be more
patriotic or more sa.u'ary than for each citi-
l.u ip a~, ,ug question, D., the North right:
The course Us mljDrtlc,- thanks to Maine
patriotism, oSE state cyrcpted-arc pursu-
ing, inevitably tend 10 dirij1 this Hoti,
couHtryi % ruin ITS commerce and It's man
uilcturcS To tear into halves It's noble bar
ucr and 10 make the first experiment the
annals Of the world afford, Of great, self
governed people, TO he a FAILURE. Look,
patriotic citizens, at the results Of this Amc-
rlcan system thu, far, after siXty.hyc years
OF trial Of our constitution. is it possible
the north CAS- be right TO act the part of a
parraCidc and ScOru the blessings which the
Union confcrs, Can the north be RIGHT in
throwing itself into the hands ofthc madmcn
tribe Of Senator Wade, and proclaim that
there is no Union A.: viii not patriotic in
stincts, here in old Hancock and Adams.
Massachusetts, and everywhere in our coun-
try, compel our citizens to pronounce the
dcmagogucs who thus play on feelings, and
passions, and prcjudcos, to he traitors?
Patriotic citizens The voices from the
past, the prosperous freedom of the present.
all that is dear to humanity in the future,
unite TO proclaim that the North is NOT right
II cool. ;pr, 20 fi,,i,l, ,,,- ,,II,