Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1856-03-14
laws, and the choice of officers for their exc

they hnd been passed ny n legislature duly
elected by tho people Of the territory,
would have been null and void. inasmuch as
they are plainly in violation Of the federal
constitution, il too clear for argumnut.---
Congress itself is expressly forbidden by the
Constitution Of the United States to make
any laws abrlging the freedom of speech and
of the press; and it is absurd to suppose that a
territorial legislature. deriving all it's power
from Congress, should not be subject to the
same restrictions But these laws were not
enacted by tie people Of Kansas. They were
imposed upon them by an armed force. Yet
the President OF the United States. in a special
message sent to Congress on the Oath Of Jan
uary, 1856, declares that they have been on
acted by the duly constituted authorities Of
the territory, and that they are of binding
obligation upon the people thereof. And
on the 18th February, 1856. he issued hIs
Proclamation, donouncing any attempt to
resist or subvcrt these barbnrOus and void
ennctmcn.s, and warning all persons engaged
in such attempts, that they will be opposed
not only by the local militia, but by any
available forces belonging to the regular
army Of the United States. Thus has the
federal government solemnly recognized the
usurratious set up in Kansas by inva-
ders from Missouri, and pledged all the
power OF the United States to its support. -
American history furnishes no parallel to the
cruelty and tyranny Of these acts of the pre-
sent administration. The expulsion OF
aliens, and the penalties inflicted upon citi-
zens for exercising freedom of speech and of
the press. under the alien and seditian laws.
which were overthrown by the Republican
party of 1898, were lenent and mild when
compared with the outrages perpetrated
upon the people of Kansas, under color of
law, by the usurping invaders sustained by
the federal government.
With a full sense of the Importance Of the
declaration, we affirm that the execution OF
these threats by the President of the United
States upon the people of Kansas, would be
an unconstitutional exercise Of executive
power, presenting a case of intolerabe tyran-
ny-that American citizens cannot submit tc
1T and remain free. and that if blood shall be
shed in the prosecution Of 50 unlawful q
purpose, those by whose agency it may be
split will be held to a strict and stern ac-
count by the freemen of the republic So
plain. palpable and deliberate violation of
the constitution would justify the intcrposi
tion of the states, whose duty it would be- by
all the constitutional means in their power, tC
vindicate the rights and liberties of the citi-
zen against the power of the federal govern
ment and we take this occasion to exprcs,
to our fellow-citizens in Kansas, agains
whom these unconstitutional act. are direct
ed. our profound sympathy with them in tn,
resistance which it is their right and theil
duty to make to them, and our determination
to make that sympathy efficient by all thu
mean. which We may lawfully employ.
Thus, for a period of twenty-five years
has slavery been contendlng under various
pretcxts, but with constant success, agains
the tendencies Of civilization and the spiri
of our institutions, for the extension anC
perpetuation Of it's power. The degree il
which the general government has aided it
efforts may be traced in the successive step
it has taken. In l1c7, all the states in tn
confederacy united in ordaining that SLAYER
should be forever prohibited from all the ter
ritory belonging to the United States, Ii
l1N9, the first Congress of the United State
passed a law re-atIirming this ordinance anc
re-enacting the prohibition of slavery whicl
it contained. In 1920, the slnvehol1ing in
terc.t secured the admission of Missouri as
s. ave state into the Union. by acceding to
similar prohibition of slavery from tn
Louisiana territory lying north of 36 deg. 81
min.
and the people of the territory were left fre,
to admit or exclude slavery. in their owl
discretion. In 1856, the General Govern
ment proclaims it's determination, to use al
the power of the United States to enforce
upon the people obedience to laws imposed
upon them by armed invaders, establishin;
slavery, and visiting with terrible penaltie
their exercise of freedom of speech and o
press upon the subject. While two-thirds 0
the American people live in states vher
slavery is forbidden by law, and while five
sXths OF the capital, enterprise and produc
tive industry OF the country rest upon free
dom as their basis, slavery thus controls al
departments of their common gOvernme t
and wiclds their powers on its own behalf.
TIE PLEAS Urged IN DEFENCE oil
THESE AGGRESSlONS OF SLAVERY
As a matter of course. for all these act
and for all the outrages by which they hav
been attended, the slavehoding interes
pretends to find a warrant in the Constitu
ton of the United States. All usurpation
in countries protesting to be free, must hay
the color OF law for its support, No outrag
committed by power upon popular rights, !
left without some attempt at yindication.-
The partition of Poland, the overthrow of tn
NoHSNi'utiOh VI hungary, tlc ucstIuCtIlOn U
Irish independence, like the repeal of tn
Missouri Compromise and the conquest o
Kansas, were cOnsummated with scrupulou
observance of tina forms of law.
TIE PLEA THAT TIE MISSOURI CON
PROMISE WAS NOT A COMPACT.
I. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
it is urged on behalf of those by whom i
was effected, involved no violation of goo
faith, because that compromise was merel
an act of Congress and a. such repealable a
pleasure. Regarded as a legal technicality
we are not disposed TO contest this plea =
The compromise was undoubtedly embodie,
in Congressional enactment, subject to re
peal. But in this case, by the very natur
of the transaction, the faith of the partie
was pledged that this enactment should no
be repealed. Tho spirit of the law, whateve
its form, was the spirit of compact. 1t
enactment was secured by an exchange o
equivalents. The slaveholding interest pro
cured the admission of Missouri into tn
Union, by consenting, and voting througl
its representatives in Congress, that nortl
of its southern line, in the territory Of Loui
siana, slavery should be prohibited toreuer
Without that consent and that vote the ad
mission Of Missouri could not have bee
secured-nor would the prohibition Of slave
ry until 1854, or until any other date, or 70
any other time than that specified in the act
namely, torerU-have purchased tn. as.sn
of the free states to the admission of Missouri
as q slave state into the Union. The wor
forerer, therefore, was material part of tn
law and of the consideration for its enact
ment Such law may be repealed but it
repeal is the rupture of compact-the re
| pudiltiOn Of a solemn covenant. The Mi.
souri, Compromise has been regarded as sue
n compact, from the date Of its enactment
in all sections and by all the people Of tn
country Successive Presidents have invoke
| for it a respect and an obligation scarcely in
terior to that of the Constitution itself; an
Senator Douglas himself, as late as in lsii
declared that it had been " canonized in tn
hearts of the American people, as a sacre
thing which no ruthless hand would ever b
reckless enough to disturb" Whatever
therefore, the mere form of the bond ma
have permitted, good faith on the part of tn
representatives of the slaveholding interes
required that it should be kept inviolate.
- nb ,r 10 Ca -,