The Placer herald., 1856-11-01

passed by Congress-and what is this bill
that it should light up the North with such
glaring flame, and such tervent heat
Would any one suppose, who only saw the
light, and felt the heat of the flame, created
by its passage, that it was nothing but the
law which governs every other territory
that it is a law most republican in its char
acter, aud simply enabling the citizens of
those territories, capable of voting, to vote
themselves such government in accordance
with the Constitution of the Union, as a ma
iority of them may think most conducive to
their growth and happiness Any thing
alarming in this? Who would have it 9TH
erwise Who will say, that the voters of
a territory should not be permitted to form
their own government to suit themselves,
provided it is republican in its character
what State or what party, will dare assume
that the free people of a territory are under
their puplage-who, or what State, will
government? And where is the territory
that would submit to such dictaton were it
offered Certainly none settled bv 1mer-
ican freemen, would allow it. Well, if it is not
republican for Massachusetts-Ne England
or all Of the Northern States, to form gov
ernment for territory-if the people of
that territory have the political right to
make constitution for Reconsideration
the Kansas Nebraska bill is right for such
are the principles settled upon by law, for
the government of territories, Now if the
people will 90 mad, because law so simple
so republican, so Just to citizens, forming a
constitution for themselves, is passed, we
may wei! believe there is danger in their
madness Again, would ask, who are so
led astray by partisan or religious madness,
as to oppose SO ust and wholesome a law!
But some will say we do not oppose the law
established-three thousand New England
clergvmen did not solemnly, and calling on
God protest against the law as it is 1t was
not for that all New England and most free
States were set on fire by agitators, and onr
government convulscd, and our whole country
made to tremble. No. We agitate, they
will say, because the Missouri Compromise
was repealed. and because of the provision
made for freemen to vote themselves a gov
ernment And now how is this What
was there in this Compromise so wond rful
or so ESSENTIAL to the happiness of any, as to
gourd, to say, II do well to be angry"
What was that law? Why, it was measuring
political privileges by a line Of latitude
giving to free voters south of that line priv
ileges which were withheld from free voters
north Of that line-a territory south of i
could make republican constitution for
hemselves-those north of it, were restricted
in making it. Is this republican? Have
not free people the same right to form
their first constitution that they would have
to change their constitution, and adopt a
slavery clause if they chose to do so! There
are several of them that have been slave
States, what is to hinder them from becom-
inc so again, but the will of the majority Of
the voters What other States would have
the constitutional right to interfere with them
were they to do so! None. And why
shoull they wish, if they had the right, to
prevent territories from exercising the same
right in framing constitution which they
themselves enjoy? Is such interference the
way to live together in harmony, as happy
sisterhood of States? No, the way of peace
and happiness is to do as Congress has done
not only by Kansas, but by all its territories,
let the voters thereof vote them govern
ment only restricted by our common insti-
tutions 70 do this the Missouri Compro-
mise was in the way, and was therefore right
fully repealed. 1t was always anti-repnblican
and unconstitutional and the political ain
was in possing-not in repeating it. Who
did its repeal injure? No one. What State
or what individual lost any political right
thereby? None, but on the other hand, it
restored to some, rights, that by it they were
deprived Of and of which deprivation they
could we'll complain, and it gave them the
same privileges that all New England enjoys
nothing more have they received nothing
less were they entitled to-.
But it will be said it gives them the privilege
of voting for slavery, and that raises our right
eous indignation. True it does, but it only puts
them on an equality with all other voters in every
State and Territory of the Union--a right whict
no individual or State, or assemblage of States
has the ghtful power to take from them 1t is said
voting for slavery in the free States, is harmless
right as there is no danger Of its being establish
ed, but there is danger of making Kansas a
slave State. Well, supposing there is, does that
Justify us in depriving them of political right
Who made us their mentors. or the guardians OF
their morals? If we can rightfully interfere to
prevent them from voting for one measure, we
can for any and for all. Supposng our brethren
the Jews were nearly equal in number there, and
should vote to establish by law. Saturday (Which
is their Sabbath) as the Sabbath Of the Lord, and
to be observed as holy day, and forbiddlnS ser
vile labor on that day; or supposing the voters
should agitate the question there. that has been
agitated and passed into law in some of the free
States prohibiting free negroes from settling there
would either OF these or any other municipal
regulation which they might think proper to pass
for their own protection or to promote their hap
ninnSS iustifv rs in intprfprcinT to prevent it,
No. 1t is enough to simply say, it would be none
of our business. If they introduce any custom
or passed any law which shocked our moral sense
we should doubtless regret it. and it would not be
improper by our example and personal influence
to convince them, if we could. of their error
but who would like to preach crusade against
them for this? What three thousand clergymer
] wnuld Ln nod in lna ynn their nuntS and