Washington sentinel., 1856-08-09
THE KANSAS ACT AND THE TERRI
TORIAL ACTS OF 1850.


TORIAL ACTS OF 1850.
The Kansas law is based upon the terrific
rial acts of 1850, and the circumstances which
led to Them these having in effect, repealed
the old compromise Of 1920.
1t has been repeatedly shown in our columns
in effect, the same. The only difference is,
that as the inhibition of slavery by the Mis-
souri, restriction Of 1920, applied to Kansas ia
terms, and not to the Meriean territory, a re-
peal Of it ia terms was not necessary, as to
to the former, though not as TO the latter.
Can any man show any other difference?
If now, the territorial acts of 1850 were
honest, AS constituting an adjustment or com
promise of the territorial difficulty if in other
words, the men of the North, who united with
the men Of the South in passing them were
| honest in their purposes, can there be any
doubt that the adjustment so made had no
reference to the source from which we nc
quired the territory whether Mexican or
French, but was adopted rs fair and just in
respect to all territory of the United States
| The argument, the subterfuge, the quibble
Of the Black Republican party, and Of Mr..
| Fillmore and his Northern adherents, is that
the Missouri Compromise was restricted to
French territory; and not being law in terms
for the newly acquired Mexican Territory, a
new rule might be substituted for that--even
the Wilmot proviso. Now, it is true, the Mis-
i af "a nl.,atn
ritory because there was no other to which it
could then apply. That was the reason. and
the only reason. Does any one doubt if in
! 1870 there had been other territory lying north
of $50 30> then the French territory, the inhi-
bition Of that law would have been applied to
| it also2
| II, now, Tho Missouri line was just and fair;
II repeal OF it was 50 unjust and unfair in
the eyes Of Black Republicans, as to call for
civil war and disunion; if its restoration alone
will appease the incensed North, and still the
throbbng breast of free and bleeding Kansas
will any one tell us why that just and fair line
of division was not enacted in 1S47, IS,
| 70, so by these agitators; but was rejected,
repudiated, and tramped under their feet? Ii
will not do TO say it had not been enacted for
any Territory, but the French acquisition. That
is technical, and merely technical The ques-
| tion is-if fair for the French territory, why
was it not far for the other? And if not
proper for the Merican, why so proper and in
dispensable for the French acquisition?
Fair dealing people are astounded at this
pretence, sustained only by a technical plea,
at which honest men hang their heads, and
which they would never present.
| But how utterly prostrated are they, where
history shows that the territorial acts of 1850,
actually repealed Mis vay Missouri line IN its
operation upon French territory; and uniting
French and Mericqn territory under the same
government, substituted for the compromise Of
1920, the constitutional principles ofthe acts Of
| 1850.
Both Utah and New Mexico contain portions
Of the French acquired territory-and the latter
contains portion of the State Of Texas. The
| French and Texas territory lying north of 36o
30>, was subject to the slavery inhibition Of the
Missouri act of 1920, and the Texas resolu-
tions Of ls45; and yet, despite those congress
ional restraints, the acts of 1850, provided that
| the States to be formed out of Utah and New
Mexico, might come into the Union, iciM or
,cithom sldrery, as their constitutions at the
time Of admission should prescribe. The Mis-
souri act said they should not be admitted with
slavery; the acts of 1850, said they should!
Did not then the act of 1850 repeal the law of
| lS20-and repeal it as to French territory?
We have shown III a late article, that these
acts of 1850 did more. They extended the
Constitution with its guarantees Of equal rights
over the territories. They provided for the
trial of cases i,lrolciRg tile 10 slqres," imply
ing the legality Of the status of slavery, and
gave to the local legislatures full powers to
legisate for the protection and defence Of pro-
perty in the territories.
How can Black Republicans then maintain,
that the Missouri law, which they refused 10
enact, was fair, just and rightf How can they
say it stood, as a sacred compromise, when they
refused TO extend or to sanction it2 How can
they worship what they cast down, or give
honor and sauctty to that which they repudia-
ted with scorn and derision? How can they
contend that it should not be repealed, as TO
Kansas, when it had been repealed as to terri.
tory to which il applied as literally, as it did to
Kansas2 Why should il have been repealed
as to one portion Of French territory, and not
as to the residue? Is there any reason or jus
ticc in such pretensions as they offer?
But not only is the justice and truth Of the
Kansas law maintained by the views already
presented, but there is another, which is con.
elusive. .
The territory acquired from France was slave
territory. The law Of slavery covered it.
The territory acquired from Mexico was not
slave territory. The law Of slavery did not
cover it.