The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-09-04
2l2,685 4,539,958
638,763 5,072,8lI l8 48

n
-
638,763 5,072,8lI l8 48
In 1890, the population of the seven original
free States was 1886, 499; that of the six orgi.
nal slave States was 1852 ,504; showing a diff.
ference in favor of the latter, of 66,002. In
1850, as can be seen in the above tables, the
same original free States contained 1929, 562
inhabitants, while the old slave States, though
nearly twice as large, contained only 1883, 1853
inhabitants; the difference being 3,lS9 ,604 in
favor of the free States.
These figures strikingly illustrate the posi-
ton set forth above, that free society, from the
diversity of employments which it gives rise
to, has the elements of increase and develop
ment in far higher degree than slave society.
A comparison of the new free and slave States
will demonstrate the greater tendency of slave
society to diffusion. In 1850, the new free
States contained population of $751;, 1913,
while the new slave States contained 5,072,7ll,
or 4,487 less. When it is considered that
the old slave States contain 2l2,685 square
miles Of territory, against l24, $3.50 in the old
free States, and that their populations were
about equal in 1870, it becomes apparent that
diffusion, or extension of area, is far more ne
cessary, and has taken place more rapidly, on
the part of the slave than the free States. The
above tables also show that the new area which
Slavery has monopolized and organized into
States is much greater than has been occupied
by the diffusion of free society. Thus, the area
of the new slave States is 638, 1853 square miles !;
that of the new free States is but 4S8, 2l7 square
miles - showing difference in favor of the
former of l5O,546 square miles, equal to three
such States as North Carolina.
Is Slavery-an institution of which the fra
mers of the Constitution were ashamed to &C.
knowledge the existence-entitled to this pref.
erence and prominence? Is Freedom-the
glorious bject of the Revolution-tob be crowded
out at this rate, by barbarous and cruel sys-
tenn of oppression, which, if let alone, will peo-
American freemen?
We see no other ground for such preference
and monopoly, unless it be in the superior right,
power, and virtue, of an irresponsible slave oil
garchy, over twenty times more numerous
mass of free citizens, who live by the sweat Of
their brows.
This tendency of Slavery to diffuse itself, and
to crowd out free labor, was early observed by
American patriots, North and South; and Mr..
Jefferson, the great apostle of Republicanism,
made an effort, in 1884, to cut short the en-
croachng tide of barbaric despotism, by prohibit
ing Slavery in all the Territories of the Union,
down to 81 degrees of latitude, which was then
our Southern boundary. His bene6cent purpose
failed, not for want of decisive majority of
votes present in the Congress of the Confede-
ration, but in consequence of the absence of
the delegates from one or two States, which
were necessary to the constitutional majority.
When the subject again came up, in 1887, Mr..
Jefferson was Minister to France, aud the IA
nous Ordinance of that year was adopted, pro-
hibiting Slavery north and west of the Ohio
river. Between 1884 and 1887, the strides of
Slavery westward, into Tennessee and Ken.
lucky, had become too considerable to admit OF
the policy of exclusion; and, besides those re-
gions were then integral parts of Virginia and
North Carolina, and of course they could not
be touched without the consent of those States
In 1920, another effort was made to arrest the
progress of Slavery, which threatened to monopo
lie the whole territory west Of the Mississippi
In the mean time, the South had apostatiSed
from the faith of jefferson. 1t had ceased to
love universal Liberty, and the growing import
ance of the cotton culture had caused the PEG
pie to look with indifference upon the moral de-
formity of Slavery; and, as a matter of course
the politicians became its apologists and de-
tenders. After severe struggle, Compro
mise was agreed upon, by which Missouri vas
to be admitted with Slavery, which was the i'm
mediate point in controversy; and Slavery was
to be excluded from all the territory north and
west of that State. 1t was understood tina,
States formed of territories south 36e 30/ were
to come into the Union with Slavery, if they
chose to engraft that institution upon their po
iitcal systems. This, though merely an under
standing, has beer the policy pursued by 81
| Administrations and three slave States hays
since come into the Union without opposition
from the North; besides Texas, with proviso al
loving for its subdivision into four Or FIVE others
of the same character,
| When the South had thus received all thif
benefit from the bargain, and when the turn o.
the North came round, Southern politicians Of al
shades, with the aid of a few Northern traitors
denounce the Compromise as demonstrations
snd Yold, and proceed forthwith to repeal it.
This is in brief, tie history of Slavery legisla
ton; and the records of nations afford no more
fragrant instance of bod faith - :