Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1856-01-18

champions Of freedom were citizens OF slave
States, and occupied the highest stations in
the State and National Governments.
In 1884, Immediately after the partial
adjustment of the conflict between the claims
of the Union and the pretensions of the
States in respect to the territory between
the Allegahanies and the Mississippi. thro
the session, by Virginia of the territory
northwest of the Ohio, Jefferson proposed
to provide forever against the extension oi
slavery by positive prohibition OF Its exis-
tence after 1900, in any territory eeded or
to be ceded, or in any State to be created
ont of such territory. This proposed pro
bibition received the votes of sixteen out Of
twenty three delegates, aud of six out OF
nine States in the Congress of the Confed-
Grafton. It failed to become law by roa-
son of that provision of the Articles Of
Confederation which made the concurrence
of at least seven States necessary to an af-
firmative decision of any question. The
great majority in its favor indicates, however,
/ the prevalent sentiment of the time.
Three years later, the Ordinance of 1877
impressed upon the soil of the territory
northwest of the Ohio an indelible pro
hibition of Slavery. That Ordinance was
adopted by the unanimous votes of all the
States in Congress It covered every inch
of territory subject to the exclusive regula-
ton of the General Government.
In the same year the National Constitu-
ton was framed. Mr.. Madison declared it
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea,
that there could be property in man" No
such word as slave or slavery found place in
any of its provisions. All recognition Of
the rightfulness of slaveholding, and all ma
tional sanction of the practice, was carefully
excluded from the instrument. In every
clause which has been or can be construed
as referring to oslavery, it is regarded as the
creature of State legislation, and dependent,
wholly, upon State legislation for its exis-
tence and continuance. There is no trace in
the Constitution itself, or in the debates of
its trainers, of any expectation or apprehen-
sion of the institution or maintenance of
slavery by national law, or in national terri
tory. No one anticipated its extension be-
yond the limits of the existing States.
But the people required additional secu-
rity. When, therefore, Virginia suggested
an amendment to the Constitution, that "no
freeman ought to be deprived of his life,
liberty or property, 5ut By the la'O Of the
land" Congress refused to sanction this re-
stricted guaranty, but proposed for the adop-
ton Of the States, an amendment enbrac-
ing a comprehensive and express intcrdict
against all invason of personal rights by the
general government. That interdict made
part of the Constitution, by the consent of
the States, is in these words: mo person
: shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law" =
So long as this provision remains unaltered,
it is not easy to see how slavery can be con-
istitutionally introduced any where, or con-
tinued any where, by national legislation or
in national territory.
This brief statement will suffice to show
what was the policy and what was the an
ticipation of the founders of this republic iii
respect 10 Slavery. Their policy was one
of repression, limitation, discouragemeut;-
they anticipated with confidence the auspi-
cious result of universal freedom. Persist
ent adherence to their policy would doubtless
have realized their anticipations.
| need not say to you that this policy has
not been adhered to, nor need l trace the
gradual process by which the Constitution
has been wrested from its original purposes,
and the Government has been converted in
to an instrument for the maintenance and
extension of slavery.
By ccssions from slave States, and by trea-
ties with foreign governments, vast terrific
ries have been acquired, in all of which the
original policy of the government required
prohibition, but to none of which was prohi-
bition actually applied, until resistance to
the further increase of slavery and the slave
power in the republic by the admission of
Missouri as slave State, led to tho great
contest between the extensionists and restric-
tionists, which, in 1920, terminated in the
adjustment generally known as the Missouri
Compromise.
The terms Of that teompronise were these:
that Missouri should be admitted with sla-
very; that slavery should be forever prohib-
tied in the territory north of SO 80 except
Missouri; and that Congress should refrain,
for the present, at least, from legislative
prohibition of slavery south of 360 3O'.-
This last term was only implied; it was not
expressed.
This compromise, in substance and effect,
was a compact between the slaveholding and
non-slaveholding sections Of the country,
and was universally so regarded. 1t yielded
to slavery absolutely, the territory occupied
by Missouri. and it left without the protec-
ton of prohibition all the residue of territory
acquired under the French treaty south of
$50 30'. As the original policy of the
country, and the true principles of the con-
stitution required the exclusion of slavery
from the whole of this territory, it was to be
expected that this adjustment would be re-
received with much dissatisfaction in the
free States. twas so received; but after a
time, for the sake of peace and in the full
belief that its stipulations in respect to the
territory north of go so, would be faith
fully observed, the people generally acqui-
esced in it.
Concession invites aggression. Having
succeeded in establishing slavery in Missouri,
the slave power soon insisted upon the i'm
piled term of the compromise as positive
stipulation for the allowance of slavery south
'of 36o 80; not only in the territory acuuir-