The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1855-10-19
PLAIN ANSWERS.


fihe Union means by Southern en-.
croachmeni." tina, the South have encroach-
ed upon the rights Of the North, will the
editor inform us in what respect. Was the
annexation of Texas an encIoachmenl upon
the rights Of the free States, or was II delri-
mental to their Interests !
Most willingly we answer. Slavery is
an institution solely. in the care and keep
ING of the State where il exists. The Fed
eral Government, has nothing 10 do with II.
This the Democrat will concede. When
the South claimed OF the Federal govern
men pay for their slaves who had escaped
ino Indian Territory, and forced the nation
into Florida wars, thus saddling il with the
expenses OF these wars, it encroached upon
the rights OF the North. Again !, encroach-
ed upon the rights Of the North when i,
treated with coniemp, the respectful petitions
OF the people Of the North asking Con-
gress TO abolish slavery in the district OF COL
umbia aud more than this, and above them
all, il encroached upon the rights oi The
North when il made acquisitions OF slave
Territory. The annexation Of Texas was
such an encroachmen,, for the people OF the
Free States had the right 10 demand tina, il
Territory were acquired ii should be free
Territory. Slavery is contrary 10 natural
right, against the law Of nations, a God de.
tying wrong, aud every successful attempt
to increase il is an encroachment upon the
rights of the free. and every man who ar.
CUES for its increase, or supports measures
by which il can be incIeased is the friend
of iyranis and a foe TO Liberty. II he is res
den, Of the South, his course may be cS'
cused, il Northern man, his treachery ,c
liberty is inexcusable. Is the Democra
answered
Again we quote from the Democrat:
Was the acquisition of California and New
Mexico, Southern encToachmen, 7" {
measure whereby we have large ant
fourishing free State, unbounded in lis re-
sources, and the prospect that New Mexico
will also become free Stale unless ,h'
Missouri Compromise line is resiored.-
What say, Mr. Cowan, are you in favor
lis restoration
MIR. Cowan says that he is in favor OF tn
D restoration OF the Missouri Compromise an,
! he says further, iha, restored or not, h
: will not bate one jot or title of his opposi
D ton 10 the admission of any other States a
? slaveholding States carved out of terriior!
, aqv belonging 10 The United States, whelhe
: above or below the liue Of go 30'. Wha
has the restoration oil the Missouri Comprc
! mise 10 No with California or New Mexico
: I, applied only 10 the Territory ceded 10 u
2 by France, under tho name Of Louisiana
/ and every foo, OF land below go 30 OF lha
n purchase Is slave Territory and Missou'
e north Of il, The South have got their par
o of the contract and now want TO rob III
: North Of theirs, and men are found in III
a North. who are laboring induslIiously I
Z help them do it. Does the editor OF III
: Democrat, mean to convey false impressio
or is he ignorant, when he talks abou, Ne,
a Mexico becoming free State unless III
e Missouri Compromise is restored!
Z The following are the precise words {
the Compromise of 1890 which was repeal
ed by the Nebraska act, May 22d 1854.
"That in all that territory ceded. by Franc
y to the United States, under the name o
/ Louisiana, which lies north OF ihiriy-siy de
a grees and thirty minutes north Latitude, slaS
cry and involuntary servitude, o,herwis
than in the punishment Of crimes, whereC
: the parties shall have been duly convicted
: shall be, aud is hereby forerer prohibited.
I VIVA, objection could we have 10 IN
, restoration Of the Compromise, as il wonl
, leave us just as free as before TO oppose III
b admission of New Mexico as slave State
as we most certainly should. Is the Demo
I crat answered and will lis editor study III
history Of his country, before he again talk
Of the restoration Of The Missouri Compro
mise making New Mexico slave State
, But the Democrat says further:
Has no, the South the same proportion
able right to the Territories, and 10 have
voice in the dis pOsilion Of them that tn
North has I II so, why no, LEI the citizens
: of the Slave States, as well as OF the free
States, emigrate 10 the territories 1.-THE.
wish, and take their effects OF every descrp
ton, il they choose with them; and than a
the proper time unite in forming a govern
1 =. a. al cub
, hitting 10 the will OF the majority :!
No denial OF the right OF the South 10 EN-
, israie TO he Territories, have voice it
their management, or 10 carry their effects
there, has been made. Their rights are a:
perfect as are those Of the people of the
North. Nobody questions them. But by
'eflec,s OF every description" the Democrat
means slares, gingerly way of getting owe
the mention Of an unpleasant word. Why
no, say slaves boldly and openly. The dill
Guilty is here. Slaves are effects only il
the slave States, they are not effects in The
Territories OF the United States though the
Democra, would make them so. II carried
voluntarily into the Territory of the United
States, they own ,hemseIves-are fee men
and the Democrat though protesting
Democracy would s,ip them OF their in
alienable rights. The South is no, content
with having equal rights with the North,
they ask not only 10 20 into the Territories
but TO carry their accused institution there,
and the Democrat, is willing 10 lend them a
helping hand. Now we are no, thus will.
ing. The people Of the North have right
10 demand that every rood of land belong.
ing TO the United States, Territories we
mean, shall when carved into States, be
free from the curse Of slavery, and we ,rus,
they will so demand. Slavery we believe
! Z; a.. ,..,.,,,, scou,yo that afr.cis human; /.