Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-01-19

r.. - $3.50
q tie com promise as a positive stipulation for the
niioWance Of slavery south Of SO deg. 20 mini
n"tonly ia the territory acquired from France, but
IN ali other territory, Whenever aud however ac-
quifed, in which slavery nigh: exist Mt tic tiue Of
acquisition. This Interpretation was tacitly nd.
mitted; and under the compromise, thus inter pre-.
ted. Arkansas, Texas and Florida, came into the
Union ms slave States, aud the small remainder Of
the territory south Of 80 deg. 30 min, was allotted
to slaveholding Indian tribes.
All :he territory. south Of the Missouri Line,
whether acquired before or after the dute Of the
compromise, was thus incorporated into slave States
or otherwise appropriated to Slavery under the
siayehoiding Interpretation Of the Compact. Moth
ing was left to freedom for settlement by non.slave.
holding ireemen, except the territory north of the
Missouri line. The freedom of this territory it was
thought, was firmly secured. Guaranteed by the
Constitution, protected by original policy, guarded
oy n compact, in the fulhllment of which So much
has been yielded, that it seemed impossible for
Slavery itself to ask more, the people Of the Free
States have never dreamed that it could be invaded
OF endangered. But this anticipation proved illu.
sorry. When the time arrived for the organization
OF government for this territory with q view to
open II for settlement and cultivation, the Coun.
try was astounded by the demand If theSlavePow
er for the a6rogation of the Missouri prohibition
Athrst the demand was heard with in1redulous
ainazement, aud then with unwilling Indignation
IL availed nothing to appeal to ~plighted faith, moth.
ing T. appeal an ancient policy or CONSTITUTIONS
guarantees. The great dominant power of Slave
nv demanded the sacrifice of Freedom, and the
obletion must be made. The Missouri Prohibi
ton was repealed: the Compromise of 1896, per
formed to the letter, by the Free States, was broken
up and desire yed by the Slave States to avoid the
iulhlIment Of its only stipulation in favor Of Free
dom.
The pretences under which this wrong was per.
petrated, give additional keenuess to the sense Of
injury.
1t was boldly asserted that the prohibition was
unconstitutional The power to prohibit terri
torial Slavery had been exercised by the first
Congress under the Constitution in the act provid-
ing for continuing in full effect the ordinance Of
1857. The Constitution. in express terms, had
conferred on Congress the power to make all need
ful rules and regulations concerning the Territory
of the United States. This provision has been
uniformly regarded as authorizing all necessary
territorial legislation. Almost every Congress had
exercised the power, and almost every President
had approved its exercise. The very persons who
denied the power to prohibit Slavery, asserted the
power to establish territorial governments and to
define their departments and powers, and there
fore, in denying the power of prohibition, were
reduced to the necessity Of denying that the great
er includes the less.
Under the circumstances. after the prohibition
Aai remained unqueStioned for more than a third
Of q century, the denial of its cons nationality
'N''NH NAlhl n Oh'N
1t was also insisted that the doctrine Of popular
sovereignty required the repeal Of the prohibition.
This was Il mere abuse of terms. The true idea
of popular sovereignty demands as Il primary es-
sential condition the recognition Of inalienable
personal rights. There can be no popular sover-
eighty where o portion of the population is enslav-
ed. The prohibition Of slavery is therefore a nee.
essary prerequisite to q real sovereignty of the
people. In the sense Of the apologists for reveal,
popular sovereignty signifies nothing but the rights
Of a portion of the community to enslave the rest.
1t begins by the denial of the natural rights of
man. Unjust end in the total subversion of the
fundamental principles of American institutions.
For a free and independent people, it would substi,
tute a community of masters, dependents, and
slaves.
Such is the re7ulsive theory. In practical opera
ton 1t has proved moro attractive. AS embodied
in the Nebraska Kansas bill, it has been fruitful of
nothing but evil. 1t has not conferred q single
substantial benefit upon the settlers of either terri
tory. In no respect are they distinguished from the
settlers Of Minnesota. where slavery is prohibited,
by exposure to its evils. The sole special
effect of the Nebraska. Kansas act upon the terri
tories organized under it is to open them to the
of slaves. In one of them il has led
to desperate attempts to effect that object-to in.
vasion, ususpation, violence, Observation-Disclosures
to civil war. Crimes like these are not the legiti-
mato fruits of that doctrine of popular ~self.gov.
eminent, to the maintenance of which our faith
ers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their
honor.
In all these things our own State has a deep and
peculiar interests. Our own history furnishes the
most complete vindication Of the policy Of slavery
prohibition. We occupy in part the soil protected
from the blight of slavery by the Ordinance ofl7S1.
For more than half q century the people Of Ohio
have been accustomed to regard that Ordinance
with mingled emotions Of gratitude and pride.
Conspicuous among its provisions, and in fit COM
panlonship With It's sacred guarantees OF religious
freedom, Of liberallity towards immigrants, OF the
the inviolability of private contracts, Of the secu-
rity of private property, and Of universal cduca-
ton, stands the great interdict against slavery, ac-
knowledglne and impa-tially protecting the rights
df man as man. The words to which we always
recur, when seeking in the Ordinance the peculiar
springs of our wonderful prosperity and progress,
are those which embody this prohibition. Never
did the noble pioneers who laid the foundations on
which we now ~.ioyfully build, complain Of that in
terdict as an abridgement of any rights, personal
or political. On the contrary they have ever spo-
ken of it as the pillar of fire by night and of cloud
by day which guided and protected them in the
wilderness. More than any other State, Ohio, as
the first born Of the Ordinance and indebted to
the Ordinance for her proud position rs the third
State of the Confederacy, Fand first among TIE new
States, is bound to cherish and defend its great
beneficial principles. In doing so we shall
be f~ellow-workers with it's illustrious trainers in
tlclr o"h uecldTeu ppllcy anu purpose Oh eA-
tending the fundamental principles of civil and
religious liberty wherein these republics, their
laws and constitutions are erected, and fixing and
e establishing those principles as tho basis of all
constitutions and governments which forever
shall be formed in" American "territo-
ry." No political duty appears to be more urgent
than this.
The question of Slavery, it is almost universal
ly conceded, transconds in present Importance all
other political gu estions Of n national chara,tcr.-
The repeal of the Missouri Prohibition, abroga-
ting the Missouri Compromise, opens anew. the
whole subject of the relations of Slavery to the
Union, to the StGtes, and to the Territories. In
determining tn. true lie of duty, under these cir
cumstances, it seems to be the part of wisdom to
recur to the acts of the founders Of the Republic,
and to the principles of the Constitution. To me
these guides seem to indicate n plain path. 1t
leads back to the original national policy. That
policy, | have already remarked. while it sanction
ed no outside interferenc co with Slavery Within
Slave States, contemplated no extension Of it be-
Vonl Sfata limits II raOorded SLAVERY in all Ire