True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1856-05-28
Extension and Exclusion. .


correspondent of one of the Anti.N ebras-
ka papers, "are aUerse to the extension
Of siapsry into Territory nO,O free, or
which is covered with any moral inhibi-
iion." Tbe Peoples Convention at In.
dianapolis, la, resolved-~we are un.
eomprdmisingIy opposed 10 he extension
Of Slavery" As ihe call for National
Convention al Philadelphia originally
stood, the invitation to meet was extend.
ed to all "in favor Of the exclusion of
Slavery from the Territories ofhe Uni.
ted States" ltwas afterwards altered
so as to read, "oppOsed to the extension
Of Slaue'y."
Some honest people think there is no
difference between opposition to the sr.
tension Of Slavery, and support of The
policy of exclusion, but they are gravelv
mistaken. One is a Principle, the other
a mere Sentiment; one is positive, the
other negative; one admits of all sorts of
constructions and evasions. the other i'm.
poses clear, unmistakable duty > one re.
laes TO a present, practical issue, the 9TH
er, to no issue at all This last declara-
tien will surprise many persons. but
few remarks will explain it 10 their salts.
faction. When we acquired territories
from Mexico in lS4s, the question was,
Shall Slavery be allowed in them or not!
in other words, Shall it be ertended?-
The North wavered, was beaten the
Slave Power obtained the privilege Of
planting Slavery in them, if il could, and
it used its privilege. In ls53-'54, the
question was, Shall the Missouri Com
promise be repealed ?'i in other words,
Shall Slavery be extended, if the Slave
Power so please, 10 The territories embra.
ced within the restrictive clause of that
compact! The Norlh again wavered,
was beaten the Slave Power obtained
the privilege of planting Slavery in them
and used it. In both instances the cues.
ton was, Extension or Non-Extension Of
Slavery. Now, this question has given
place to anolher-and why Slavery
exists in New Mexico, Utah, Kansas.
Nebraska-e exists, as matter Of fact, in
all United States Territory, not protect.
ed against it by positive law. What,
then, is and must be the Question
Exclusion or Non-Erclusion Of Slavery
from United States r. rritOries, by pos
itiUe La'0. The struggle plainly is, not
against The extension of The evil into these
Territories, as if it had moi already been
extended TO them, but for its erclusion
from them, because il exists therein, and
claims its right of existence under the
Federal Constitution.
"OPposilion to the extension of Slave
ry," now, has just as much meaning as
oppo silion 10 the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise--snd that is none at all, for
practical purposes. We recolecl tina,
the Hunker Democracy Of Ohio, at its
Stale Conventions, from lS4S tn 1854 IN.
elusive, regularly aft med opposition to
Slavery and Slavery extension, "by ALI
constitutional means" and all the while
supported the whole pro.slavery policy
of the Party, voting first for Cass, and
then for Pierce. OF course it was oppo.
sed to the extension Of Slavery. What
wise man or fool living in a free State,
is not! But it is one thing 10 entertain
sentiment, another to act upon princi-
ple-one thing to dislike The existence of
an evil, quite another to act for its repres-
sion or exclusion. lfyou mean anything
practical by affirming opposition to Sla-
very extension, you mean to exclude it
from the Territories which it has invaded
by fraud and force. Say so, then, and
let US have no dodging the only issue
worth Presidential Campaign.-Na-
tOnM Era. ,..' b..