Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-07-08
sourHERN AGGRESSION.

AS complete refutatlon, 1t would sufhce 10
say that the North has majority and that the
South is in a minority in both Houses of Con.
gress.
But we will 60 further and prove the mega
tive.
We allege that the South, so far from being
aggressive towards the North, has always been
on the defensive, in regard to slavery as to
every other measure.
The fugitive slave law of 1884, was passed
in accordance with an express provision of the
Constitution to that effect; il was passed by all
the Northern States then themselves slave
holding States. 1t was intended, by our
fathers Of that day, honestly to carry out the
provisions of the Constitution, and to secure to
owners Of slaves the recovery Of their fugitives.
1t was honestly intended, and honestly carried
out, so long as the men of the North were
honest and true to the engagements made by
their fathers. The South wanted no other law
than this, passed by the North as well as the
South; the South desired only its execution,
as, it is well known, it was intended to be by It's
We ask this question. Suppose the Northern
States had remained large slaveholders-wou
not the Interpretation and the execution of the
Fugitive Slave law have continued as it origi-
nally was and have sufficed to secure to owners
their property? No one will question that it
would If so, then. the North would have
been unprincipled in SO doing, or they are now
unprincipled in refusing thus to allow it sway.
The South has always been opposed to legis-
lation on the subject of slavery, consequently it
could not be aggressive.
The Missouri Compromise was no legislation
by the South. The South wanted no legisla-
ton on the subject, but the North brought for
ward bill confscating from the South the
entire national domain, excluding by act,
slavery from territory then actual slave territory,
and appropriating the entire federal domain to
the exclusive use and benefit of the free States.
The South resisted this atrocious attempt to
rob them of access to the common domain of
all the States. The dispute waxed exceeding
ly warm ; the North having the majority could
push the South wholly from the territories. To
have done this would have caused dissolution
and division of the territories, in which case
the South would have received her portion in
proportion to federal numbers. The South had
the choice TO do this or to remain if endurable
terms could be had. The South therefore, as
the price for the continuance Of the Union,
proposed to offer a sacrifice to Northern Gu
pidity. 1t offered the Missouri Compromise
line, by which it excluded itself from all terri
tory above that line, leaving it exclusively to
the North. The South was to confne itself
South of that line, while the North had not
only the monopoly of all territory above that
line, but common and equal right with the
South to all below it. This sacrifice on the
part ofthe South, for the sake of peace and the
Union, was SO magnanimous that some of the
Northern men had so much sense Of propriety
and patriotism left, as to join with the South
and make it the compromise line.
Thus the Missouri Compromise had its birth
in the attempt of the North to deprive the
South Of all interest in the federal domain.
This was Northern aggression.
The Wilmot proviso was introduced and
about to be passed by House of Representa-
tves pledged to it
| This the South resisted, with determined
purpose to secede if this further outrage should
be perpetrated. Not satisfied with the sacri-
fee made by the South under the Missouri
Compromise, an attempt was made to violate
that compromise by the Wilmot proviso And
it is the abettors and instigators Of this very
Wilmot proviso, which was a clear and unmis-
taxable violation Of the Missouri COMPROMISE
| who now raise such howls over its repeal.
When new territory was acquired, the South
proposed to abide by the Missouri Compromise.
to endure the same sacrifices with new acqui.
sitions that she had made under the old. The
North refused it, purposing wholly to exclude
the South from the new domain. California
was hurried in as free State, thus wholly ex-
GLIDING the South from the Pacific shores.
Repeated attempts have been made to interfere
with slavery in the District Of Columbia.
Endless petitions have poured in upon Con.
gress from the North to regulate slavery be.
tween the States, and urging aggressive mea-
sures in every form. The South has never
sent petition.
The compromise Of 1850, like the Missouri
Compromise, was a still further yielding to
northern aggression then attempted-the South
desiring no legislation, but accepting the com
promise rather than yield to the grasping de.
mands Of the North. All that the South OBJ
tanned in that compromise in exchange for all
the sacrifices made under it, was re.enact.
ment of the Fugitive Slave law-the South
again submitting rather than secede.
The Kansas-Nebraska bill was a northern
measure it was everywhere at the North adj
vocated expressly upon the ground that, by
removing<he Missouri barrier, it would enable
the North more readily to sweep South into
the territories and augment the number of free
States.
The South perceived that this might readily