New-York daily tribune., 1856-01-16


the policy and What the anticipation oi tDe lou
trs Of this Republic in respect to Slavery Iher pou.y
was one Of repression limitation, dlseourag gement
they anticipated with confidence the su.plcous
of universal Freedom. Persistent adherence TO tneI
policy would doubtless have realized their sn'Ic'Pa'
need not saw 10 you that this policy has not been
adhered to- nor need trace the gradual process oy
which the Constitution has been wrested from It's org-
ins purposes and the Government has been eonyertee
into an instrument for the maintenance ana extension
of Slavery. ~
foreign Governments vast territories have been ac-
CURED in all of which the original policy OF the Gov
eminent required prohibition, but to none OF Whch
was prohibition actually applied, until resistance u
the further increase of Slavery and the Slave Power 10
the Republic by the admission Of Missouri a. Nave
STATE led 10 the great contest between the Extension
,s and the Restctionsts which, in 1920 terminated
in the adjustment generally known as the Missouri
Compromise. ~,
The terms of that compromise were these That
Missouri should be admitted with Slavery that slavery
should be forever prohibited in the Territory acqucd
from France, north of 80 deg 80 nun: exSep' aSsou
and that Congress should refrain, tor the present az
least from legislative prohibition of Slavery south OF
SO deg 80 min. This last term was only imphed'
was rot expressed. A.. - .
This compromise in substance and effect, was
compact between the slavehoding and non-slavehod-
ing sections of the country, and was UNIV ersay - re
garded Ii yielded to Slavery absolutely the territory
occupied by Missouri and II left without the proteeon
Of prohibition Oil the residue OF
der the French Treaty. south of 80 deg. 80 mln "A
the original policy of the country and the true prncl-
pies OF the Constitution required the exclusion OK
Slavery from the whole OF this territory was 10 oc
e,pected that this adjustment would be received with
much dissatisfaction in the Free States. IL was 80 re-
ceiyed; but after time for the sake OF peace anu IN
the full belief that its stipuatons in respect 10 the ter
ri,ory north of 80 deg. 30 mn would De tahiuiy oo
served the people generally acquescsd in It,
Concession invites aggression. Having succeeded
in establishing Slavery in Missouri, the slave power
sson insisted upon the implied term of the Compomse
as a positive stipulation for the allowance OF Slavery
south of 30 degrees 30 minutes not only in the teni'
tory acquired from France, but in all other territory
whenever and however acquired, in which slavery
might exist at the time of acquisition. Ibis nterpfota-
ton was tacty admitted; and uader the COMPROMISE,
thus interrupted Arkansas Texas and Florida, came
into the Union as Slave States and the small re-
mander of the territory south of 80 degrees 10 minutes
was allotted to savehoding Indian tribes.
All the territory south of the Missouri hne-whether
acquired before or after the date Of the Compromise
was thus incorporated into Slave States or otherwise
appropriated TO Slavery, under the savehodng inter-
petation of the Compact. Nothing was left To Free
dom or settlement by non-saveholdng freemen except
the territory north of the Missouri line. Ihe trce-
dom of this territory, 1t was thought, was himy
secured Guaranteed by the Constitution, protected
by original policy guarded by compact IN the iu-
fllment of which so much had been yielded that 1t
seemed impossible for Slavery itself to ask more, the
people of the Free States never dreamed that IL
coud he invaded or endangered. But this Anticipation
zation of Government for this territory, with view
TO open il for settlement and cultivation, the country
was astounded by the demand OF the Slave Power ior
the abrogation Of the Missouri Prohibition At first
the demand heard with incredIlous amazement
and then with unavailing Indignation. 1t availed
nothing 10 appeal TO pgbted faith-nothng to appeal
to ancient policy Constitutional guarantees. The
great dominant power of Slavery demanded the sacr
fee of Freedom and the obation must be made.
The Missouri Prohibition was repealed; the Compro-
mise of ls20-performed to the letter. and far beyond
| - L Al Atotaa .lyant mud.
DESTROYED by the Slave States to avoid the fulment
of its only stipulation in favor of Freedom.
The pretenses under which this wrong was peipe-
trated give additional keenness to the sense OF INJURY
1t was boldly asserted that the prohibition un-
constitutional. The power to prohibit Territorial
Slavery had been exercised by the first Congress under
the Constitution in the act providing TOR continuing IN
full effect the Ordinance Of 1877. The Constitution,
in express terms had conferred on Congress the power
TO make all needful rules and regulations concerning
the territory of the United States This provision had
been uniformly regarded authorizing all necessary
T, nitoria legislation. Almost every Congress had
exercised the power and almost every President had
approved its exercise. The very persons who denied
the power to prohibit Slavery asserted the power to
establish Territorial Governments, and to define their
departments and powers, and therefore, in denying
the power Of prohibition reducedto the necessity
of denying that the greater includes the less.
Under these circumstances after the prohibition had
remained uDquestOned for more than the third OF
century the denial of its constutonaity rather pro-
voked indignation than excited doubt.
1t also insisted that the doctrine of popular
sovereignty required the repeal of the prohibition.
This was a mere abuse of terms. The true idea of
popular sovereignty demands az primary essential
condition the recognition of naenabe personal rights.
There can be no genuine popular sovereignty where
portion of the population IS enslaved The prohibition
vi Slavery il therefore necessary prerequisite to a
real sovereignty of the people. In the sense OF the
apOlogists for repeal, popular sovereignty signifies
nothing but the right of portion of the community to
ensave the 1t begins by the denial of the nat
raj rights of man. 1t must end in the total subvesion
Of the fundamental principles Of American institutions.
For free and independent people, it would substitute
community Of masters, dependents, and slaves.
Such is the repulsve theory In practical operation
il has not proved more attractive. As embodied in
the Nebraska Kansas BILL it has been fruitful of moth
ing but evil 1t has not conferred single substantial
benefit upon the settlers of either Territory. In no
respect they distinguished from the settlers Of Min
nesota where Slavery prohibited except by expos
ure to its evils. The sole special effect of the Ne
braska-Kansas act upon the Territories organized
under it is to open them TO the Introduction Of slaves
In one Of them il has led to desperate attempts 10
effect that objecto invasion, usurpation, violence
boodshed-almost to civil war. Crimes like these
not the legitimate fruits of that doctrine of popular
sefgovemment TO the maintenance Of which oar
fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their
honor.
In all these things our own State has deep and Pc
culiar interest. Our own history furnishes the most
complete yinscatiOn of the policy OF Slavery proh-
bon. We occupy, in,pa, the soil protected from the
blight of Slavery by the Ordinance of 1857. For more
than half century the people of Ohio have been ac
custOmed TO regard that ordinance with mingled emo
tions Of gratitude and pride. Conspicuous among its
provisions and in fit companionship with it. sacred
guarantees of religious freedom, Of hberalty to-
ward immigrants, OF the nvioabnity of private con-
tracts OF the security of private property, and OF
universal education stands the great interdlct
against Slavery, acknowledging and unparialy pro-
tecting the rights Of man. The words to
which We always rCcur when seeking in the ordin-