Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1856-02-02
For the ST. Paul Daily Times
TINE FALSgrY OF THE ARGUMENT.

For Daily Times
THE FALssTY OF THE ARGUMENT.
In reading in the Free Press Of the 4th inst, an
article from the N. Y. Journal of Commerce, en-
titled ga NORTHERN ARGUMENT in Defence of the
Kansas Nebraska act,'' I was struck with the
falsty of the argument and resolved to ask the
privilege of answering it through the columns of
the TINES.
The Journal writer boldly asserts that the So
called popular Sovereignty doctrine is the grand
safe guard of freedom, and the grand opponent
of Slavery - that it has banished Slavery from
the slav ehold;ng States,- enumerating them,
and will ultimately Danish it from ''Maryland,
Kentucky, Virginia and other savehoding Statcs.''
lie further asserts, that 'the ordinance Of 1887,
constantly in the mouths of Anti Slavery men,''
has been entirely inadequate to prevent the
Establishment of Slavery, and attempts to show
that under the ordinance of 1857 Slavery got
foo,hold in Indiana and Illinois, and was only
abolished by the operation of ''popuar sovereign
tvs" when those Territories became States, and
then triumphantly adds, that ''such is the opera
ton, of popular sovereignty, on the system of
Slavery, contrasted with the prohibitory ordinance
Of 1897"
Now would ask, what sane and honest mind
fail to appreciate the truth, that it due to
the prohibition Of 1887 that Slavery never got
such foot hold in Indiana and illinois, during
their Territorial existence to assert its right
recognition and protection in the constitution of
the States. Was the Journal writer ignorant of
the fact, did forget, that repeatedly the citi-
zens Of those Territories petitioned Congress to
be protected in the privilege of holding Slaves,
which Congress persistently denied, thereby dis
courngng the hope of Shareholders that those Ter
ritories would ,ver become slaveholding States?
Does he forget that Shareholders emigrated from
Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky, passing thro'
the Territory where Slavery was prohibited by
the ordinance Of 1877, and planted themselves
and their cherished institution in the Missouri
Territory west of the great river, where under
the Louisiana treaty they were permitted to hold
Slaves?
Popular Sovereignty, according to the Journal
writer, should have permanently excluded Slavery
from Missouri, and, if, as he bndy reasons, the
effect of the prohibition,--like Rory O'Morcs
dream "going by contraries''-was to establish
Slavery, why do VIC not see it somewhere in the
north-we Territory?
Absurd falsity! The truth is known to every
school boy, that where Slavery has been prohibit
prohibited By la, there it has planted itself, with
the only exception of Maine and California whcre
peculiar causes operated to keep it out.
What State has been added to this Union, with
above exception, since the adoption of the Con-
stitution, that has come in Free State, under
the operation of popular sovereignty? Was it
Kentucky there was no prohibition there pop
ular sovereignty had free course on tho ssbloody
ground" Yet this ''grand safe guard of tree
dom and grand opponent of slavery'-Iquote the
writer's words-faled signally to accomplish its
boastcd mission. Was it Tennessee? The same
was true of Tennessee, as was stated of Kentucky.
Was it Alabama? Did popular Sovereignty make
it free? Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Missou-
ri, Arkansas, Texas, which of all these States,
left to the operation Of popular sovereignty, that
"grand safeguard of Freedom and opponent of
Slavery" became free? Not one. How is it
with those States and Territories where Slavery
was expressly prohibited by Ia,o, where according
to this marvellous new light dawning through the
Journal Of Commerce, we ought to expect Of all
places, Slavery to be? Is it in Ohio, Indiana, H.
lnois, Michigan or Wisconsin? The ordinance
OF 1857 operated over the territory covered by
these States and who can then say that tho soil
and climate of Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas
are so much better adapted for slave labor than
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois
The truth is perfectly apparent, that but for the
prohibition of 1887, and the persistent refusal of
Congress to grant the pro Slavery PRAYER of the
earlier settlers Of Indiana and Illinois, that those
States, like Missouri, would have been Slave
States, and it might have been that Ohio would
have been taken possession of by her Virginia
and Kentucky neighbors, with slaves.
The Journal writer quite ignores the significant
fact, that not single State has eper entered this
Union .inee the adoption Of the Constitution,
with the exception of Maine and California,
where, as have said, peculiar locations and 9th.
er causes operated, but tohat has come in as a
Stare state, or rhere slavery had previously been
prohibited By larc. Witness the States have
named.
Permit me to classify and place the Slave and
Free States that have entered the Union since the
adoption Of the Constitution, in separate columns
FREx STATES; alias SLAVE SrArEs; alias.
states under the opera States under the opera
tion OF the ordinance ton of ''Popular Sover-
Prohin't.on or Missouri eighty, the grand safe
restriction. guard o. freedom.
Ohio. Kentucky.
Indiana. Tennessee.
Illinois. Alabama.
Michigan. Mississippi.
Wisconsin. Louisiana.
Iowa. Missouri. I'D
Arkansas.
Florida.
Texas