The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-04-10
THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST THE ISSUES
TO BE DECIDED.
The Old Policy.

The doctrine that the General Government
has right to prohibit Slavery in the Terrific
ries, and ought to exercise it, was clearly sane
toned by the Ordinance of 1887 for the gov
eminent of the Northwest Territory and that
Ordinance was, subsequently, recognised and
sanctioned by the Congress of the United States,
in repeated instances.
Initiation of the New Policy.
In l84S, when it became necessary to form
Governments for the Territories acquired from
Mexico, the doctrine was strenuously contested
by large portion of the Southern members of
Congress and, at last, Without any formal das-
aooacal of IL, or indeed any declaration of prin-
ciple, Congress agreed to organize Territorial
Governments, without Incorporating any pro-
vision in relation to Slavery, and, also, that the
States which might thereafter be organized out
of those Territories, should be admitted, with
or without Slavery, as their Constitutions might
ordain. This agreement, in terms, embraced
alone the Territories acquired from Mertco.
The policy of Slavery Restriction by Congress
initiated by the Ordinance of 1887, and so long
practiced upon to greater or less extent by
successive Congresses, was so far as those Ter
ritories were concerned, given up, but the right
to interdict Slavery and the expediency of ex-
ercising it, in regard to other Territories, was
not surrendered the majority of Southern men
denied it, the majority of Northern men re-
fused to disavow it; but no vote was taken
upon the question. Still, the Slave Power had
got this advantage: for the old policy of Inter-
vention against Slavery in Territories, by Con-
gress, it had substituted the policy of Non-1n-
tervention, and, although this, in terms, was
confined to Utah and New Mexico, it was easy
to see that precedent had been set, which,
at the first seasonable opportunity, would be
appealed to as a Principle, to be applied in the
organization Of all Territories.
The Second Step.
Accordingly, in 1854, when it became neces-
sary to provide Territorial Governments for the
regions embraced in the unorganized Territory
of Nebraska, it was coolly assumed that the
policy of Slavery. Restriction imposed by the
Missouri Compromise, which excluded Slavery
from the portion of the Territory north of $50
30>, had been rendered null and void by the
legislation of 1850. In other words, an excep-
tional act, applied in terms alone to New Mexico
and Utah, was assumed to embrace Princi-
ple--the Principle of NonIntervention--to be
applied to all Federal Territories.
Observe the plausible and ingenious mode in
which the .torbearance to exercise power is
construed into surrender of it; in which an
exceptional act, limited in its application, is
converted into Principle, Of universal appli-
cation. 1t is provided, in section 18th of the
Kansas Nebraska act,
"That the Constitution and all the laws of
the United States which are not locally inappli-
cable, shall have the same force and effect,
within the said Territory of Nebraska, as else.
where In the United States, except the eighth
section of the act preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Union, approved March
sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, be.
ing inconsistent aoih the principle Of non-inter-
Uention by Congress aoih Slavery in the States
and Territories, as recognised By the legislation
Of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly call.
ed the Compromise Measures, is hereby declar-
ed imperative and void it being the true in
tent OF this act, not to egislate Slavery into any
Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom,
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions
In their own way, subject only to the Constitu-
ton of the United States"
No such Principle was approved or recog-
missed by the legislation of 1850 it is notorious
that such was the state of parties, so great was
the strength of the Wilmot Proviso Party, that
any attempt to pass resolve or declaration,
that thenceforth, in the organization of all Ter
ritories of the United States, the Principle of
Non-lntervention by Congress on the subject
of Slavery should be recognised as binding,
would have failed. And yet, in 1854, MAORI
ty was found to assert that the Congress of
1850, IN forbearing to intervene against Slavery
in the Territories of New Mexico and Utah,
ian act of &orbearance resting on special
grounds,) had set aside the entire policy of In.
PREVENTION, and recognised the Principle of Nom
Intervention in respect to all Territories
Insidious Advance of the Slave Power.
The Slave Power does not leap to its prey at
one bound-its approaches are gradual and
stealthy.
In 1850, Congress, under its influence, SIM
ply consents not to intervene for the exclusion
OF Slavery from New Mexico and Utah. "Haye
you not got California Do you not say that
preexisting law prohibits Slavery in those two
Territories Besides-do you not hold that
climate and soil will accomplish all that your
Proviso is intended to secure? Why then this
wanton exercise of power?" Such was its ap-
peal to the North, and it prevailed.
In 1854, Congress, under the same influence.
afirms that the forbearance of the Congress- of
1850 to intervene against Slavery was a repu.
diation of the Principle of Intervention. and an
affirmation of the Principle of Non-I nterven.
ton by Congress, universal in its application
A Deceptive Issue.
But, the Democratic Party, which, in obed;.
ence to Its dictation, has openly planted itself
upon this doctrine, is in danger of losing ito
hold on the masses. 1t must, for the time
be allowed the benefit of another doctrine
almost as popular as that of the Ordinance Of
l787-the doctrine of popular Sovereignty -
III de'ng the true intent and meaning of this
act, not to tegistate Slavery into anu Tsrrikorv
or State, nor to erclude 1t Merefrom. but 10
feaoe the people thereof perfectly free to form
their Institutions an their own ,oay subject
only to the Constitution of the United States
Could any doctrine be more plausible II
ingeniously confounds States and Territories.
as if there were no distinction between them
1t fatters the People. 1t seems to be in har.
mony with the Revolutionary Principle, on
which the Colonies asserted their right to gov.
ern themselves, as distinct communities. It ia
in accordance with the municipal training to
which Anglo-Saxons and Anplo-Americans are