Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-01-05

NHkHN 1AA NaDNAltiNANT q a~itA-LG
e last hold OF the public judgement to such a degree
q that, 10y common consent, it was Observed in the
t orgiaination OF the Territory Of Washington.
Q Mhen' more recently, it became requisite to or.
game the Territories Of Nebraska and Kansas, IL
was the natural and legitimate, il not tue inevita-
I BILE, consequence Of previous events and legisla-
ton, that the same great and sound principle,
l when had already been applied to Utah and New
Mexico, should be applied to them that they
3 should stand exempt from the restrictions pro-
posed IN the act relative to the State of Missouri.
t These restrictions were, in the estimation Of
many thoughtful men, null fiom the beginning,
unauthorized by the Constitution, contrary to the
treaty stipulations for the cession of Louisiana,
and inconsistent with the equality Of the States.
They had been stripped of all moral authority,
oy persistent efforts to procure their indirect re-
peal though contradictory enactments. They had
been practically a~brogated by the legislation at
tending the organization of Utah, New Mexico and
Washington. If any vitality remained in them, it
would have been taken away in effect by the new
territorial acts, In the form originally proposed to
the Senate at the first session of the last Congress.
1t was manly and ingenious as well as patriotic
and inst to do this indirectly and plainly, and thus
relieve the statute-book Of ali act which might be
OF possible future benefit; and the measures of its
repeal was the final consumation and complete re
eognltlon OF the principle that no portion of the
United States shall undertake, through assumption
oil the powers of the General Government to die
tate the social institutions Of any other portion.
The scope and effect Of the language Of repeal
were not left in doubt. 1t was declared, in terms,
to be the true intent and meaning of this act not
to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State
nor TO exclude it therelrom, but to leave the peo-
pie thereof perfectly free to form ard regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, sub
Ject only to the Constitution of the United States"
The measure could not be withstood upon its
merits alone. 1t was attacked with violence on
the false or delusive pretext that it constituted a
breach of faith. Never was objection more utterly
destitute of substantial justification. When be-
tore was 1t imagined by sensible men that a regu-
latlve or declarative statute, whether enacted ten
or forty years ago, is irrepealable-that an Act of
Congress is above the Constitution? If, indeed.
there we're in the facts any cause to impute bad
faith, 1T would attach to those Dnly who have new
er ceased-from the time of the enactment of the
restrictive provision of the present day-to de-
nounce and to condemn it; who have constantly re-
fused to complete it by needful supplementary leg
~isla:lon; who have spared no exertion to deprive
1t of moral force; who have themselves again and
again attempted its repeal by the euactm ent of in
compatible provisions; and who, by the inevitable
reactionary effect of their own violence on the sub
IJect, awakened the country to perception of the
true constitutional principle of leaving the mat
ter involved to the discretion of the people OF the
respective existing or i~ncipient States.
1t is not pretended that this principle, or other,
precludes the possibility of evils in practice, dis
turbed as political action is liable to be by hunan
passions. No form of Government is exempt from
inconvenience; but in this case they are the re-
suit of the abuse, and not of the Legitimate exer-
else, of the powers reserved or conferred in the or
ganization of a Territory. They are not to be
charged to the great principle of popular sovereign
tv: on the contrary, they disappear before the in
~telligence and patriotism Of the people, exerting
through the ballot-box their peaceful and silent but
irresistible power.
If the friends of the Constitution are to have
another struggle, its enemies could not present a
more acceptable issue than that of q State whose
Constitution clearly embraces "a Republican form
of Government" being excluded from the Union
because its domestic institutions may not in all
respects comport with the ideas of what is wise
and e~xpedient entertained in some other State.
Fresh from groundless imputations of breach Of
faith against others, men will commence the agita-i
ton Of this new question with iudubitable violation
of an express compact between the independent
sovereign powers Of the United States and the Re-
public of Texas, as well as of the older and equally
solemn compacts which assure the equality Of all
the States.
But deploraLle as would be such a violation of
compact in itself and in all its direct consequences
that it is the very least of the evils involved. When
sectional agitators shall have succeeded in forcing
on this issue, can their pretensions fail to be met
by counter pretensions? Will not different States
be compelled respectively to meet extremes with
extremes ? And If either extreme carry its point
what is that so far forth but dissolution of the
Union? If a new State, formed from the territory
Of the United States, BE absolutely excluded from
admission therein, that fact of itself constitutes
the disruption of union between it and the other
States. But the process Of dissolution could not
stop there. Would not a sectional decision produ-
cling such result by a majority of votes, either
Northern or Southern. of necessity drive out the
oppressed and aggrieved minority, and place in
presence of each other two irrecOncilably hostile
considerations
1t is necessary to speak thus plainly Of projects,
the offsI ring of that sectional agitation now pre-
vailing in some of the States, which are as imprac-
ticable as they are unconstitutional, and which, if
persevered in, must and will END calamitously. 1t
is either disunion and civil war, or it is mere an
CRY, idle, aimless disturbance of public peace and
tranquility. Disunion for what? If the passion
ate rage of fanaticism and partisan spirit did not
force the fact upon our attention, 1t would be diff
cult to believe that any considerable portion Of
the people of this enlightened country could have
so surrendered themselves to a fanatical devotion
to the supposed interests of the relatively few .
Africans in the United States, as totally to aban-
don and disregard the interests of the twenty-five
millions of Americans-to trample under foot the
injunctions of moral and Constitution obligation
and to engage in plans of vindictive hostility
against those who are associated with them in the
enjoyment of the common heritage of our national
Institutions.
Nor is it hostility against their fellOw-citizens o
one section the Union alone. The interests, the
honor, the duty, the peace, and the prosperity Of
the people Of all sections are equally involved and
imnerilled in this question. And are patriotic
in any part of the Union prepared, on such
an issue, thus madly to invite all the consequences
the forfeiture of their constitutional engage
1t is impossible. The storm of frenzy
and faction must inevitably dash itself in vain
against the mistaken rock of the Constitution. ]
shall never doubt it. | know that the Union is
stronger a thousand times than all the wild and
chimerical schemes Of social change, which are
one after another, in the unstable minds
of visionary sophists and interested agitators. /
rely confidently on the patriotism Of the the
people, on the dignity and self.respect of the States
On the wisdom of Congress, and, above all, on the
gracious favor of Almighty God to main
against all enemies, whether at home or
abroad, the sanctity of the Constitution and the i
of the Union.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
Washington December 81, 1855.