Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-01-24

unti resistance TO the further increese W
Slavery and the Slave power in the Re-
public by the admission Of Missouri as a
Slave State, led to the great contest be
tween the Extensionists and the Restric-
tionists, which, in 1870. terminated in III e J
adjustment generally known as tho Missouri
Compromise.
The terms of that compromise we're these: !
that Missouri should be admitted with Sa-
very; that Slavery should be forever PRO.
hibed in the territory acquired from France
north of SO degrees 30 minutes, except
Missouri; and that Congress should refrain,
for the present at least, from legislative |
prohibition Of Slavery south Of 35 degrees
80 minutes. This last term was only inn
piled: it was not expressed.
This compromise, in substance and cf-
fec, was a compact between the slave
holding and non slave holding sections or
the country, and was universally so regard
ed. 1t yielded to slavery absolutely the
territory occupied by Missouri, and i: eft
without the protection Of prohibition ali
the residue of the territory, acquired under
the French treaty, south of SO deg. 80 min
As the original policy Of the country, and
the true principles Of the constitution re-
quired the exclusion Of slavery from the
whole Of this territory, i; was to be expect
ed that this adjustment would be received
with much dissatisfaction in the Free
States II was so reeeived; but after
time, for the sake Of peace, ana in The
full belief that its stipulations in respect to
the territory north of 36 deg 80 min,
would be faithfully observed, the people
generally acqliesced in it.
Concession invites aggression. Having
succeeded in establishing slavery in Mis-
souri, the slave power soon insisted upon
the Implied term of the compromise as a
positive st ulatiOn for the allowance Of
slavery south of 50 deg 80 min, ;--E0t only
in the territory acquired from France, but
in all other Territory, whenever and how.
ever acquired, in which slavery might exist
at the time OF acquisition. This intcsple
Itation was tacitIy admitted, and under the
compromise, thus interpreted, Arkansas,
Texas, and Florida came into the Union as
Slave States, and tn, small remainder OF
the territory south of SO deg. 30 min, was
allotted to slave holding Intian tribes.
All the territory south of the Missouri
line whether acquired before or after the
date Of the Compromise, was thus incorpo.
rated into Slave States, or otherwise ap-
ing Interpretation of the Compact. Moth
Ing was left to Freedom or settlement by
aon- slave eholding freemen, except the :er.
ruorv north of the Missouri line. Tie
freedom of this territory, it was Thought,
was firmly secured. Guaranteed by tie
Constitution, protected by original policy
guarded b. a compact in the fulflment o!
which So much had been yielded that il
seemed impossible for Slavery Itself to ask
more, the People OF the Free States never
dreumed that it could be invaded or endang-
cred. But this anticipation proved ilusory
When the time arrived for the organha-
ton .: government for this territory with u
view to open it for settlement. and cul,iva.
ton, the country was asstounded by the de.
mand of tie Save Power for the abroga.
ton of the Missouri prohibition. At first
the demand was heard with increduluus
amazement, and then with unavailing in
dignation. 1t uvailed nothing to appeal to
plghted faith; nothing to appeal to ancient
policy or Constitutional guarantees. The
great dominant power of Slavery demanded
the sacrifice of Freedom, and the ob!aton
must be made. The Missouri Prohibition
was repealed; the Compromise of 1920,
performed to the letter, ani Tar beyond the
letter, bv the Free States, was broken up
and destroyed by the Slave States to avoid
the fulflment OF it's only stipulation in favor
of Freedom.
The preiences under which this wrong
was perpelrated give additional keenness
to tho sense ot injury.
It was boldly asserted tina, the prehibi-
ton was unconstitutional. The power to
cised by the first Congress under the Con.
s,itution in the act providing for con,inu-
ing in full effect the ordinance Of 1857
The Constitution, in express terms, had
conferred on Congress the power to make
al! neediul rules and regulations concern
ing the Territory of the United States -
This provision had been uniformly regarded
as authorizing all necessary territorial legis-
lalion. Almost every Congress had exercis-
ed the power, and almost every President
had approved It's exercise, The very persona
who denied the power 10 prohibit Slavery,
asserted the power to establish territorial
governments and to define their departments
f aud powers, and therefore, in denying tho
power of Prohibition, were reduced TO the
necessity OF denying that the greater in-
cudes tho less.
Under these circumstances, after the
prohibition had remained unquestioned for
more than the third OF a century, the de-
nial OF its constitutionality rather provoked
indignation than excited doubt.
Ii was also, insisted that the doctrine Of
popular sovereignty required 'he repeal Of
the prohibition. This was 4 mere. abuse
ol terms. The true idea of popular soverei-
gnty demands as a primary essential condi-
! ton the recognition OF inalienable personal
rights. There eau be no genuine popular
sovereignty where a portion cf the popula.
ton is enslaved. The prohibition of sla-
very is therefore a necessary prerequisite
to a real sovereignty Of the people. In the
Epnse of tho aDologjsts for reDcal noDulAr