Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-01-24

siaued anv wheEs. By rs'ional legislation or
. nssoral territOy.
This busf statement yill suffice 20 show
what vas the policy aud what vas the an
ticipa,ion Of The loandsra Of this republic in
respect % slavery. Their policy vas one Of
repression, limitation. diseOurae, ment they
ansieiplied wish confidence Ghe alspieious re
sult of universal freedom. PeTIssvul adher.
snee o heir policy would doubtless have re-
ahz,d their an'icipa'ions.
need not say TO you that this policy has
not been slhered 10. nor need trace the grad 4
ual process by which the Constitution bas been
Etssssd from It's original purposes, and che
GsYenmeut has been converted into an 10
ssumeut for the msintsnanee and extension
R IlkFsry. II.
Bv cesslona from slave States. and bg treaties
with foreicu Governments, vast territories have
heen acquired, In all o. which the original pol
lev Of the GVyemEcat required prohibition
A1t 10 nons Of Which vas prohibition Sotuall,
anpIied. until resistance TO the further increas
sAslayerv and slave power in the republic by
fhs admission Of Missouri as & slave State, led
10 the great contest between tbe extenlionists
and the restriclionists, which in 1920, termi
mated in the adjustment generally known as
he Missouri Compromise,
Inc terms Of that comproTise were these.
that Missouri should be admitted with Slavery
that Slavery should be forever prohibited II
she territory acquired from France, north OF 3
deg so min, except Missouri, and that Con-
Rress should refrain. for the present at least
from legislative prohibition OF Slavery south
8G deg. 81 min. The last term was only i'm
Piled. it was not expressed.
The compromise, in substance aud effect
vas compact between the slaveholding and
nor. .slayeholding sections Of the country, and
was universally soTegardsd. II yielded to sla.
Very absolutely the territory occupied by Mis-
souri, and il leh without the protection of pro-
hb.ion all the residue OF territory acquired
under the French treaty south Of SO deg. 81
min. As the original policy Of the country an
the true principles OF the constitution require
the exclusion OF slavery from the whole oi thi
territory, It vas to be expected that this ad
iustment would be received With much dissat
isfaction in the Free States. 1t was so receV
ed: but after q time, for the sake Of peace, and il
the full belief that its stpulatons in respect {,
the territory north of 80 deg 80 min, woulc
be faithfully observed, the people generally
Acquesced in ii.
Concession invites aggression. Having sue.
ceeded in establishing slavery in Missouri, the
slave power soon insisted upon the implied
term of the compromise MS posi- i've stpula-
uon for the allowance OF slavery south of sc
deg. 81 min, not only in the territory &C
aured from France, but in all other territory
whenever and however acquired, in which sla-
very might exist al the time Of acquisition.
This Interpretation was tacitly admitted, snC
under the compromise thus interpreted, ,Arkan
sas Texas and Florida came into the Union Al
Slave States, and the small remainder Of thu
territory south Of SO deg 80 min, was allotted
10 tlaveholdng Indian tribes.
All the territory south Of the Missouri line
whether acquired before or after the date Q
the compromise, was thus incorporated iut
Slaye States. or otherwise appropriated to Sls
very under the slaveholdips Interpretation {
tbs Compact. Nothing was left TO Freedom {
settlement by non-slaveholdiug freemen, el
cept the territory, north OF the Missouri line
The freedom Of this territory il was though
EaS firmly secured. Guaranteed by the Cor
Et:tution, protected by original policy guarde
by compact in the fulfIlment of which $
much had been yielded that it seemed impos
sible for Slavery itself to ask more, the Pee
pie of The Free States never dreamed that
could be invaded or endangered, But this sr
licipation proved illusory When the time al
rived for the organization Of government 70
This territory with view to open it for settle
ment and cultivation, the country was astoun-
ded BY the demand of the Slave Power 70
the abrogAtion Of the Missouri prohibition. A
first the demand was heard with ncredulou
amusement, and then with unavailing ndigna
tion. Il avsiled nothing to appeal to plighte
faith: nothing to appeal to ancient policy or Con
stitutional guarantees. The great dominar
power OF Slavery demanded the sacrhce {
Freedom, AID the obligation must be made.
The Missouri Prohibition was repealed; th
Compro mise OF 1920, performed to the letter
and far beyond the letter, by the Free States
was broken up and destroyed by the Slav
States, to avoid the fulflment of its only stip
ulation in favor of Freedom.
The pretences under which this wrong wa
perpelraLed. give additional keenness to the senst
Of injury.
i was boldly asserted thst the prohibition
was unconstitutional The power to prohibi
territorial slavery had been exercised By tht
first Congress under the Constitution in th,
act providing for continuing in full effect III,
ordinance OF 1887. The Constitution in ex
pre,s terms, had' conferred on Copgess tn,
power to make all needful rules and regulation
concerning the territory Of the United States
THIS provision had been uniformly regarded
As authorizing all necessary territorial legisla-
ton. Almost every Congress had exercised th,
power, and almost ever President had ap2ro
we'd its exercise. The very persons VINO denied
the power to prohibit slavery, asserted the pow.
Ag 70 establish territorial governments and to de-
fine their dapai tfnents and powers. and there,
fore. in denying the power ofprohibition were
reduced TO the necessity Of denying that the
greater includes the less.
Under these circumstances, after the prohi-
bition bad remained unq estioned for more thar
the third Of a century, the denial Of its consti
tutionelity rather prOvokedindignatiOn than ex
cited doubi,
II was also insisted that the docirine NJ non