Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-10-04
From the Washington Union.
The Position of the North.

We have had many occasions 10 aunllIc Hhu
| to applaud the fearless courage and iuatchless
| ability with which the Boston Post stands up
in the very midst of fanaticism and treason, and
not merely defes, but boldly charges home upon
! both. The following article from that journal
| is of that independent, liberal, and national
character which has given the Post so high a
| standing throughout the Union The South
cannot but be gratified to know that she has
friends even in Massachusetts who dare 20 de-
| fend her Just rights, and 10 tell the NortN It's
| face that the North is not right in waginS this
eternal warfare of agitation upon the South
We commend the article especially to the calm
consideration of the men of substance at the
North, rs well as 10 those Southern men who
believe. or pretend to believe, that there is no
truly sound national men at the North
"THE PosrrIoS or TIE NonTH--0n Tuesday
the Boston Afias put question which 1t Is
earnestly hoped every citizen will thoroughly
so conspicuous aud alarming as that Journal nd-
vocates, to wit: the formation OF great north
ern sectional party. The question is this:
"7Re great question is not, is the South pleased,
but is the North righfP
1--WE agree to this form of putting the issue.
Is THE NonTn Rlonr? Is it is right in its pres
ent defiant attitude2 Is il right in forming q
party for national purposes III which the citi-
zens OF fifteen States in tho Union cannot enrol
themselves? Is it right in making the basis OF
this party to be attack on one of the great in
terests-the slavery intereSt-which, by the con-
sttutiOn, was left to be dealt with III the States
where il exists! 1t is fact thnt these slave
States refused to go into a union with the free
States on the basis OF the international law, that
slave reaching free country became free; but
stipulated that the fugitive should be returned;
and this was, prior to the constitution, put into
the Northwestern ordinance. With this in view,
is it right forthe North To say that slave shall
be reclaimed from its soil? Is itany more right
that this Interest," minority interest-should
be attacked, in spite of the State-rights limita-
ton, than it would be if the navigation interest,
or the manufacturing interest-bOth minority
interests-should be attacked? In word, is
the North right in trying TO sever the fraternal
ties that connect the South and the North in the
grand old common bond of countryl We earn |
estly hope that each patriotic citizen will. in the
feeling of W ashington patriOtism--at least rs
near as he can get-put the question, is the
North right in all this?
ITO show more clearly in What position the |
North has been, let go back little, and state
question with scrupulous historical exactness.
Bearing in mind that the North western ordi |
nance prohibiting slavery was passed before
the adoption of the present constitution, We re-
mark that, from 1889 up to 1890, no La,o trds
passed Jy Congress in relation 10 prohibition Of
sl0Uery in he Territories Of The Unted States, and
STATE tcds trciuded from The Cnion on aeeOuaf
efsiduery 1t is true, discussions arose on this
subject in Congress. Thus, Illinois and Indi-
ana, when Territories, passed slavery laws
uiean iairs recognizing and protectin9 slapery
notwithstanding the Northwestern ordinance;
and when Illinois. in 1878. came in as n State, |
objection was raised 10 her admission on this
ground, but it was not sustained. We state
facts that cannot be successfully controverted
and repeat that, from 1889 TO lo2p, no prohibi.
tory law was passed relative 10 slavery, and no
State was excluded OH account of slavery.
''In lSl9-'20 the North took the position that
Missouri should not be admitted into the Union
without having a restriction put upon her, pro-
hibiting her from allowing slavery To exist with
in her limits and the North annOu need this de
termination in resolutions passed by, we think,
nearly every northern legislature. And in this
manner the united North stood upon the posi-
tion that Congress had the power Ia enact per-
pctual prohibition on 4 sovereign State.
"Was the North RIGHT in taking this position?
To answer this fully would require elaborate
argument, for the considerations bearing on it
were so weighty as to involve the issue wheth-
er there should be continuance of the old union
of co EQUAL States, or whether a new union
should be commenced Of suyaiax and -fefsrier4
4sarrys fs.,thcr nla1 20 cser This ground, we
prefer TO state that statesmen as illustrious as
the country has produced went ;nto the argu-
mcnt, and have left on record answers TO the
question, was the North RIGHT in the position
it took e.. that of insisting on a prohibition
on sovereign State. These answers were Civ
Ell by Presidents jefferson, Madison, Monroe,
John Quincy Adams, Jackson and Harrison: 10y
host of statesmen, from Henry Clay and John
G. Calhoun TO those far inferior 10 them in tai
ents and reputation; and these are ALL 10 the
point that the North tcas not right We chal-
lenge contradiction on this point. We affirm
that the opinions of ALL the great men whose
names we have given are directly opposed to
the doctrine that Congress has po,rer 20 impose a
restriction on sovereign State. They pro-
nOunce such restriction to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
If the judgments of these patriots and states
men have weight, they show that in lSl9-'20
the whole North stood upon ground that was
not tenable. 1t was ground marked out by ella
NOR, passion, dcmagogueism, and not by rea-
son, Judgment, and Il regard TO the obligations
to 4 common country.