Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1856-12-05
The Boston Pcs. aud the slave Trade.

the talk about that annexation was all gam.
mon, and that nobody was in favor of 1t ex-
cept few southern Wings, now essays to
croak valisntly against the move now indica.
ted in few southern quarters for the repeal
of the statute of 1908 against the foreign slave
trade. 1t says -
"Certain questions, in American nationol
policy, ought to be considered settled. There
can be no national church, no hereditary legis-
lators, no return to monarchy. In this catego-
~ belongs the interdictive policy as to the
| African slave trade. 1t is engraven in our
| statutes, it is interviewer in our treaties, and
its repeal and reversal should be regarded as
impossible feat as to bring down the sky or
raise up the dead. President Jefferson, in his
| 1906 message, announced that the morality,
the reputation, aud the best interests of the
country had long been eager to prescribe the
traffic our whole executive, diplomatic, and
| judicial action since Jefferson's time shows
like eagerness and at this time of the day it
| is the height of political Quixotism to under
take to reverse the judgment"
With as much pertinence and sincerity
could the Post have expressed, one year prev
ious TO the repeal of the Missouri compromise,
precisely the same sentiment, with little va
ration in its wording, as follows -
+" Certain questions, in American national
policy, ought to be considered settled. There
can be no national church, no hereditary leg
islators, no return TO monarchy. In this cat
egory belongs the interdictive policy as to the
restriction of slavery embodied in the Missou-
ri compromise of 1920. 1t is engraven in our
statutes,it is interviewer in subsequent enact
ments of Congress, and its repeal and reversal
should be regarded as impossible feat as to
bring down the sky or raise up the dead
Presidect Jefferson, in his 1906 message, an.
nouDced that the morality, the reputation, and
the best interests of the country had long been
eager to prescribe the traffic in slave property
and at this time of the day tits the height of
political Quixotism TO undertake to reverse
the judgment"
Certainly, four years since, the Post would
have written paragraph precisely like the
second extract above, word for word, for there
was no one then, in the whole country,e except
few fanatical fre-ea at the South, Clike
David r. Atchison, Gov. Adams, and Gov.
Wise, perhaps,) but that held the opinion
that the Missouri Compromise was "in this
category of questions that ought to be con-
sidered settled. For at that time, even Steph-
en- A. Douglas and the Washington Union,
openly expressed themselves in opposition to
its repeal, on grounds similar to those now
urged by the Post above, against the repeal of
the restriction of 1903. For instance, here is
what Senator Douglas said in lS49, on the
Missouri Compromise:
" 1t received the sanction of all parties in
| every section of the Union. 1t had its origin
! IN the heartst of all patriotic men who desired
70 preserve ana peEpeIuHte Gne dressings
| our glorious Union--an origin akin to that of
/ the constitution Of the United States, con-
ceiyed in the same spirit of fraternal affection,
and calculated to remove forever the only
danger which seemed to threaten at some dts
tant day to sever the social bond of Union
| All she evidences Of public opinion at that
day, seemed to indicate that this compromise
| had become canonized in the hearts of the
| American people, as sacred thing '0hich no
ruthless hand soould be ever reckless enough to
disturb
| With euch precedent as this, in favor of
the sanctity and validity and unrepealable
character of the Missouri Compromise restric-
ton, how can the Post venture now 80 far to
depart from the injunctons of its great lead.
er the "Little Giant of modern Democracy,
as to apologize for and defend its repeal, with
out subjectiug itself to great inconsistency in
its present conservative position in reference
another restrictive Statute. not whit less
unconstitutional. of 1902 Truly, consis.
tency, is not modern democratic attribute.
The Posts reference to the opinions of JEFF
ferson, Clay, Calhoun, Crawford, &c., in sup
port of the justice and propriety of the act Of
1903 restricting the slave trade, is not very
happy, considering that these very leading
Statesmen, among others at the South, gave
an equally unqualified sanction 10 the act of
1920, restricting slavery forever from Kanzas
and Nebraska. If their endorsement is good
for anything in the one case, it is just as au-
thoritatiye in the other. Besides, if Jefferson's
views of the injustice and odious character of
the Slave traffic are to be considered BY the
Post OF any value, what hast to say about his
opinions of slavery itselfs 1t will have to
style him 'rabid abolitionist," "fanatics,',
"disunionists, '&c.
But render itself consistent with its posi-
ton in reference to other restrictive legislation
| of the past in regard to the slavery ques-
ton, the Post will soon be found, we fear.
defending, in obedience to the demands of its
Southern masters, the future policy of its par
ty in its effort to repeal the law against the
slave trade, with an argument like the fol-
| lowing, as well suppested nv ita cote,nnoror,,