The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1856-03-29
Californian Sob @6tt:

ritory hr'onginS tn the United States. In
1889. the first Congress Of the United States
passed a Law re-sffir.ning this ordinance and
re efactinc the prohibition Of slavery which
it contained. In 1890. the slavrholdine in
terest secured the admission Of Missouri a. q
slave state into the Union. by accrdins 70 Z;
similar prohibition Of slavery from the
Louisiana territory lying north of 80 deg. 50
min.
| In 1854, that prohibition was repealed,
and the people Of the territory were left free
TO admit or exclude slavery. in their own
discretion. In 1886. the General Govern.
,''t.ni pro iain'- It~ determination, to use ali
the power of the United States to enfore
upon the people obedience 10 Law. imposed
upon them tv armed invaders. sstahlishins
slavery. and visiting with terrible penalties
their exercise OF freedom of speech and Of
press upon the subject. While two thirds Of
the American people live in state. where
slavery is forbidden by law. and while fvs.
slxths OF the capital, enterprise and protluc-
f,ve Industry OF tins country rest upon free.
dom as their basis, slavery thus controls als
departments Of their common government.
and wiclds their powers on its own behalf
THE rLEAs URGED IN OFFENCE OF
! THESE AGGEEssioNs OF SLAVERY.
As matter OF course, for al! these at.ts and
tor all the ou'races b. which tho, have been
attended, tine Siav-hoh.ins in,-rrs. pr~,euds
:" find a warrant in the Constitution a m.
United States Al! u>urpati"n. in countries
PROCESSING 10 t'e free. must have ,l. color O.
law for IT. support No on,race ton,mit,r.i
by power upon popular rights, is left without
some attempt at ,iniica,ion The parti,io,
OF Poland. the overthrow of the Constitution
of Hungary. the destruction of Irish in.l-prn.
denre. like the repeal of the Missouri Com.
promise and the conquest ot Kansas, were
con>nmmated with scrur@lous observance
Of the forms of law
THE PLEA THAI 1HE MISSOURI CoMpRoM-
l>E WAS NOT a COMPACT.
l. The repeal Of the Missouri; Comprcn
i>e, II 's urged Oh behalf of those bv whom il
was effected. involved no violation Of good
faith. because that compromise was mere,v
an act OF Congress. and as such rrpealable Al
pleasure. Regarded as a legal ,rcl,nirali,v.
We are hot disposed to contest this r,es..
lie compromise was undoubtedly embodied
IN Congressional enactment subject to re-
Zeal. But in this case. by the v~rv nature
OF the tran>ariion. the fAi:h o! the par,ies
was pledged flat TINS enactment should mo, Ee
repealed. The spirit OF the Law, whatever
It's form, vas secured bv an exchance Of
equivalents. The s!av"holding interest pro.
cured tue admission OF Missouri into the In.
ion. by consenting. and voting through its
Representatives. in Congress. that north of its
southern line. in the territory of Louisiana,
slavery should be prohibited tor,rer With.
out that consent and that vote the admission
OF Missouri could not have been secrrrsi-
nor would the prohibition OF slaye-v until
1884. or until any other date. or for anv 9TH
er time than that specified in the act-nsr,,e.
~. ..to'crer-have purchased the assent of the
free states 10 the admission of Missouri -
slave state into tue Union. The word for
crer. therefore. was a MARTA! part of the law
and OF the consideration for its enactment
Such law mas be repealed; but its repes!
Is the rupture oi a compaft-,he reputation
OF q solemn covenant. The Missouri Com.
promise has been regarcd az such compart.
from the date of its enactment. in all sections
and by all the people of the country. Sue.
ceS>ive Presidents have invoked tor il q re.
sf.ct and an obligation scarceiv Inferior to
that OF the Constitution itself; and Senator
Douglas hlmselt. a. late as in 1si5. declared
tnai ii had been ''canOniz.i I'm the hearts #
the American people. As a sarrrd thin, which
no ruthless hand would ever be rerkles, e.
nough to disturb" Whatever, therefore the
mere form OF the bond NAV have permitted,
good faith on the part OF the representatives
OF the s!avrholding interests eqlired tia, i,
should De kept invio.ate.
III. Nor Is this charge oi tad faith brought
against the slavehoiding intere>. for having
repealed the Missouri Compromise. answered
or e' ,icd 10y the pleas urged in its defense
that originally it was forcibIy imposed by the
tree states upon the slave states. without their
consent; that IT was subsequently, violated tv
the Tree states, IN their refusal 10 extend ifS
provisions over New Mrx.o and Utah: O,
that lis repeal. having been offered bv the
states themselves. rnuId not he resisted or re-.
fused bv the representatives Of slavery. Il !
Even il II were true tha, the prohibition OF
slavery north OF Sc deg go min was original
~ enacted bv the free states. against the
votes of the South. the fact that the admis.
sion Of Missouri was accepted as the price Of
that prohibition. would have made the slave
holding interest party to the transaction. -
scnting 10 its terms an! bound hv lis ot,!igs
: ,ons, Hut the Ia Is not so The act Il
: Aiar,.h 6. 1870. which admitted Missouri IN,
z prohibited slavery in the Louisiana TERRITORY
r rorth OF 30 deg. 80 min. received in III,
shu rf r.
!. slaveholdng states. while only piuht wer
b east against it, and IN the House Of Repre-
>rnta.Ivcs thiriy-eight members from slav
2 states voted for ii, and thirty seven against il
l. A majority Of the votes from slayehollin
states. in each branch Of Congress. were thu
@ given for the bill: aud SO far were the rrrre
Sentailvrs OF slavery from regarding il as hav
u ing been forced upon them, that Charlie
r Pln"kney. one of their greatest and able.
y leaders. declared, on the night of its passag,
y that lit was recari.''! by &lav~ho.i,ns star.
il as a triumph" Cd S'i'l more absurd 10
'e to SAY that the refusal of the North 10 ext~n
P. the provisions % the compromi.e over 9th.
" regions. was violation ot ifs terms. or in sn
wav released the parties TO il from their s,t,!
r CATION {" abide 10y rs requirements. (3)
n is true that the osfpI.>Ible author ui the rro,
s. os,iOn TO repeal II was senator from a fre
l. state; but that tact does not au,horixe th
e infcreM'e that the sentiment Of the free stat,
re was justly and truly represented by this D
'r ton. There was. indeed. no room 10 duuI
y thar il was condemned by the unan;mo,
n voice Of the free states. and that it would |
ID regarded BY them. and by the country
h large. as a very gross and wanton vio,ssie
10 Of obligations which had been voluntarily Q
1t sumed- No matter from What geographic
'e quarter Of the Union it came, it vas brou.l