The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1856-03-26

dcncy to be largely in the hands of those
unfrendly to this peculiar institution.
From these conflicting views long and
violent has been the controversy. and ex-
perience seems to show it intcrminable.
Many and probably large majority Of
this nation lovers of quiet entertained
the hopcsthat after 1850 the so Compro-
mise Measures, even though not satisfac-
tory to the Free States. would be kept
by their supporters, and made bv them
what they were professed to be, 6nality
on the subject Of the extent and limta-
tions Of slave territory. more especially
after the assurances contained in the In
augural Address of President PIERCE.
This hope was fortified with the consider
alton that, at that time, Congress had,
BY different provisions, settled by law,
the conditions of freedom or Slavery for
all the territory os the United States.
These hopes have been disappointed, and
from this very provision for repose. has
been extracted principle for disturbing
the condition of things on which its
foundation of finality rested, that is the
permanence and continuance Of the then
existing condition of legal provisions.
The establishment Of the Territo orial
Governments for Utah and New-Mex-
leo, without prohibition of Slavery was
sustained by many on the ground that
no such provision was required for its
exclusion, as the condition of the coun.
try and its laws was q sufficient barrier,
and therefore this sustained them. be.
cause it would complete the series and
furnish the provisions as to Slavery in
all our Territories. and make an end of
controversy on that subject Yet in
1854 it was insisted by the friends and
supporters Of the laws of 1850, and. it 10
actually asserted in the law establishing
the Territorial Government of Kansas.
that the then laws for New Mexico and
the Compromise measures then adopted
contain a 1,rinciple utterly ct war with
their great and professed object of final
ity, and that instead of completing and
ending the provisions of Congressional
action for the Territorial action for the
Territories as to Slavery, it really de-
clnrod principle which unsettled all
those where Slavery had been prohibit.
ed, and rendered it proper, and ONLY
proper to declare such prohibition all
" inop0rtunc and roi1'n The spirit aud
feeling which thus perverted those Com
pronDsc lars and made them the direct
instrument Of renewed disturbance could
not be expected thon to leave tho result
to the decision of the people of Kansas.
with inactivity aud indifference. The
Slavcholding States in 1850 secured the
admission of Missouri as a Slaveholding
Stato,and the region south of So so to
the same purpose, by onjoining and enact.
ing that all north Of that line should be
forcrcr fee, and by this they obtained
only n sufficient number of votes from
the Free States, as counted with their
own, to adopt it. In 1850, they agreed
if New Mexico and Utah were made Ter.
ritorics without prohibition of Slavery,
it would, with tho laws already made for
the rest of our territory, settle forever
the whole subject. This proposition for
such termination also secured votes
from the Free States enough. with their
own fron the Slavoholding States, to
adopt it. In 1854, in utter disregard Of
their repeated contracts, both those ar
rangements were broken, and both those
compromises disregarded, and al! their
provisions for freedom declared inopera-
tive and void by the vote of the Slave
holding States, with a very few honora-
bic exceptions, and a minority of the
votes of the Free States After this ex-
traordiuary and inexcusable proceeding
it was not to be expected that the people
Of the Slaveholding States would take
any measures to secure a favorable re-
suit. bv votes in the Territory of Kan.
sas. Neither could it be expected that
the people of the Free States. who re.
garded the act Of lS5i as double breach
of faith, would sit down and make no Of
fort, by legal means, to correct it. II
has been said that the repeal of the PRO
visions of the Missouri Compromise and
the breach Of the Compromise of 1850.
should not be- regarded as measures Of
the Slaveholdinc States, because it was
presented by Senator from Free
State.
The actions or votes Of one or more in.
dividual men cannot give character to,
or be regarded as fixing measure on
their section or party. The only true
or honest mode Of determining whether
any measure is that of any section or
party, is to ascertain whether the mo1Oy.
Hy Of that section of party voted for it.
Now, large majority, indeed, the whole,
with few rare exceptions Of the Repre-.
sentatives from the Slaveholding State.,
voted for that repeal, Ou the other
hand, majority of the Representatives
from the Free States voted against il.
This subject Of Slavery in the Terrific,
ries which has violently agitated thu
country for many years, and which has
been attempted to be settled twice by
Compromises. as before stated, does not
remain settled. The Missouri Compro-
mise aud the supposed fnality by tho
Act of 1850, are scattered and displaced
by the vote Of the Slaveholdug States.
and it is not to be disguised that this uu-
called for and disturbing measure has
produced a spirit of resentment. from
feeling of its injustice, which, while tho
cause continues, will be difficult to allay.
The subject. which Congress has beeu
unable to settle in any such way as tho