The Feliciana Democrat. (Clinton, La.) 1855-186?, 1856-03-08
THE AGGREssIoNs OF THE SLAVE

Opposition to the acquisition OF territory ana
to the admission of new States into the Union
bos been characteristic trait of the enemies of
the democratic party ever since the purchase by
Mr.. Jefferson of the Louisiana territory. It'll
was in the early party conflicts involving these
questions that the South and the West harmo-
nized in feeling and interest, (both beng de.
voted to agricultural pursuits and cultivated
a fratcrnal sympathy which has yet lost but
little ofkts original strength.
It was not on account of the institution OF
slavery so much as from considerations OF CON-
mercial jealousy of the predominance of the
agricultural interest that the federalists oppos-
ed the acquisition of new territory. The ques-
ton of slavery never becomes the prominent
element of opposition to the admission OF new
States into the Union until Missouri made her
application,
There was more of political ejaculation than
of philanthropy in the objection to Missouri as
n slave State. 1t was hoped that, us the wes-
tern States did not recognize slavery in their
constitutions, they would sympathzc with the
North in its anti-slayery position and thereby
that the .troug bond which existed between
the South and the West would be broken.
The same object now actuates the political
leaders who are constantly appealing to the
people Of the West and seeking to excite their
prejudices against the South upon the oft re-lt-
tcrated allegation of 1.-THE aggressive character
Of the slave power"
There never was charge 80 repeatedly anu
50 confidently made that was nnfounded and 50
easily reflted as that which attrihnters spirit
Of aggression to the southern people. Fanat-
les may listen to such mn allegation, but be de-
ceived by it. We propose to rccur briefly to
the facts of history to expose once more the
falsity of the charge of aggression upon the
North by "the slave power"
The most effective argument that abolition
lists make against slavery is the fact that the
ordinance of 1857 was q suggestion of Mr.
Jefferson. But Mr. Jefferson was southern
man, and the territory to which the ordinance
was applied was owned by Virginia, and was
slave territory, Surely Mr.. Jeilerson's pro-
position was no aggression upon the North
When the confederation was formed, all the
unoccupied territory within its limits, except
what composcs the State Of Vermont and
Maine, belonged to the southern states. With
in the limits Of the "Old Thirteen eleven new
States have been added to the Union, and OF
these, all, except Vermont and Maine, were
given by the South or the nine States thus
formed out of slave territory majority are
free States viz: Ohio Indiana, Illinois, Mich
igan, and Wisconsin The South has not only
been liberal in furnishing territory for new
States, but in agreeing that a majority of them
should be free States. Slavery was the law
of every inch of the territory of the five free
States just named /; and if Virginia and the
South had been actuated by the spirit of az
erosion falsely charged upon them, these States
would never have come into the Union except
as slave States.
We turn now to the facts of history in re-
gard to the new States admitted outside of the
territory of the "Old Thirteen" Louisiana
territory was acquired by southern President
or, as the abolitionsts would say, by "the slave
power" When we remember that thi, acqu
sition extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the
head-waters of the Mississippi, about Al deg
30 min. OF latitude, it need not be added that
the acquisition was for the Union, and not fol
slavery. Besides, Mr.. Jefferson made the ac
QUESTION, and no abolitionist will suspect him
Of being actnated by pro.aavery objects in the
l purchase. The purchase contained about |
800, 900 square miles, $4,000, 900 acres; it;
limits would embrace Mirty.fre States as large
as Indiana. Erery pan Of Ills rast empire
acos Stare territory
The subsequent disposition of this territory
so far from showing that the South was ag
gressive, fixes the charge of aggression indis
pntably upon thu North. When the people O
Missouri, in accordance with the then existing
law of the territory and in the exercise of the
principle of selfgovernment, applied for the ad
} mission into the Union, they were repealed by
the North because their constitution did moi
prohibit an institution which had existed in the
T territory long before its acquisition. The Soutl
/, was surely guilty of no aggression in insisting
!, upon the right of Missouri to come into the
: Union on terms of equality with the other
: States.
But, when the North prsested in this az
gressive resistance fthe admission of Missouri
the South submitted to a division of the terri
tory. BY the terms Of this submission, all tht
remaining Louisiana territory north of SO deg
30 min. was foyerer dedicated to free soil
| whilst so much as was south of that line wat
: not dedicated to slavery, but was to the deci
sion Of the people who might inhabit it. |,
order to secure for Missouri the enjoyment of al
: nnquestionable right, the South agreed to sur
render to free soil more Than 0ne half Of TIN
. | pntipa I,ou sono ,up,hacn al ar ba ell