M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1856-01-24

ot the country. aud the true principle
Of the Constitution, required the exclI
sion OF slavery from the whole Of tEi
territory, it Was 10 be expected that thl
adjustment would be received wit
much dissS lisisction in the Free States.
IL was so rec sived; but after lime, 70
the sake OF peace. and in the frll ellie
that its slipuls,iors ia aspect TO th
Territory north OF 80 deg, 30 min.
wou Id be faithfully observed, the peo
ipls generally acquissced in il.
Concession invite sgEestioa. Having
succeeded in establishing sipery il
Missouri. re PlsVs power ioon insiste,
la"Jn The implied term Of the com pro
mise asa positive sIirulstion loi thu
allowance Of ElsVTy south Of 80 deg. 81
min. mot only in the terioy Scquir
ed from France, but in all other terrific
ty whenever ssd however acquired. ia
which slavery might exist at the time
of acquisition. This in teIpitstiun was
;scility admitted; an under The comp
toinise. thus interpreted. Arkansas, Tex
as, aud Florida came into the Union
as Slave States. aud the small remand.
er Of the teniioty south Of 80 deg. 80
min, was sllotsd to slsve.holdiug ln'
dian tribes.
All the territory south OF the Nilsson
ri line. whether acquired before or aft
CT the es.e Of the Compromise, Was IN
corporsted into Slave States, or other
wise appropriated 10 Slavery under the
slave holding Interpretation Of the com
pact. Nothing was left 10 Freedom OF
settlement BY non.sloveholding freemeu
exceps the teuiory North OF the Nilsson
ii line. The freedom of this territory
was firmly secured Guaranteed by thS
Constitution, protected by original pol
icy guarded by com pact in the fulfil
msnt OF which so much had been ysild'
ed that it seemed impossible for Slave.
~ itself to ask more. the people OF the
Free States nevei dreamed that il could
be lnvslsd or endangered. But this
su'ici pstiun proved iI!usory. When the
time sII,eJ for the organization OIL
government for this territory with q
view to open it for settlement and Cul'
tivstion, the country was astouned by
the demand Of Slave Power for the alb.
rogstion Of Missouri prohibition. Al
first the demsnd was heard with incred
ulous unszement, and then with una.
willing indignant on, 1t avdied nothing
to appeal to pIighted faith; nothing to
appeal to ancient policy or Coustitu.
tiOnal guarantees. The great dominant
power Of Slavery demanded the sacrifice
of Freedom, ard the obligation must
be made. The Missouri Prohibition was
repealed, the Compromise Of 1920, per.
formed TO the letter; and far beyond
the letter, BY the Free States, was bro
ken up and destroyed by Slave STATES
to avoid the fulfIment of its ouly stip.
ulation in favor Of freedom.
The pretenceS under which this
wrong was perpetrated. gave additional
keennes to the sense OF injurp'
twas boldly asserted that the pro.
hibition was unconstitutional Slavery
had been exercised by the first Congress
under the Constitution in the act pro
viding for continuing in full effect the
ordinance 1857. The Constitution, in
express terms, had conferred on Con.
gress the power 10 make all needful
ruIss and regulations concerning the
Territory OF the Unitde Stutes. This
provision had been uniformly regarded
as authorizing all necessary territorial
legislation. Almost every Congress
had exercised the power, and almost
every President had approved its eI
erciSe, The very persons who denied
the power to prohibit Slavery, asserted
the power to establish territorial gov,
ernmeuls and 10 define their depart
mems and powers, and therefore. il
denying the power OF prohibitisR, were
reduced to the necessity oi ying tha
the greater includes the less
Under these circumstances, after tht
, prohibition had remained uuquesIioneC
. Tor more than the third OF century, ,th'
denial of its conslitutionaIiGy ruthe
provoked mitigation than excited dou
bI
1t was, also, insisted that the doc
triue of popular sovereignty required
the repeal OF the prohibition. This va
u mere abuse oi terms. The true idea
OF popular So,ernigeiy demands as 1
primary essential CandiIion the recoG
milton Of inuiiensbIe personal rights
There can be no genuine popular soNer'
eIgnty where portion OF the popula
ii on is enSlaved. The prohibit ON oI
slavery is therefore necessary pre'r
qulsiIe to real sovereignty OF the peo'
pie. la the Sense Of the apoIVglsts iOT
repeal, popular Sovereignty signifies
nothing but the right Oi d
portion Of the community TO enslave
The rest. 1t being by the denial of the
natural rights oil man. II must end III
The Total subyeTslon OF the inndamenI'
al principles vi American institutions
For Tree and independent people, it
would substitute a community OF mas
lers, dependents and slaves.
Such Is the repulsiye theory. In prac
.ical operation it has not proved more
attractive. AS smbOdied in the Ne
braska Kansas bill, il has been iruitiu
ui onlhing but evil. |. has not confer
red a single substantial! benefit upoi
the settlers VI either territory. In uC
respect are they distinguished from th'