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

tiSs's AhN hOi1AllithbD pCHNi "a SAes'Ni
demanded the sacrifice Of freedom, and the
oblation must be made. The Missouri pro-
hibition was repealed; the Compromise of
1920, performed to the letter, and far be-
yond the letter, by the free States was bro
ken up and destroyed by the slave States,
to avoid the fulfllment of its only stipula-
ton in favor of freedom.
The pretences under which this wrong
was perpatrated, give additional keenness to
the sense of injury.
1t was boldly asserted that the prohibi-
bition was unconstitutional. The power to
prohibit territorial slavery had been exercised
by the first Congress under the Constitu-
ton in the act providing for continuing in
/ full effect the ordinance ofI7S7. The Con-
stitution, in express terms had conferred on
Congress the power to make all needful
rules and regulations concerning the terrific
ry ofthe United States This provision had
been uniformly regarded as authorizing all
necessary territorial legislation. Almost
every Congress had exercised the power, and
almost every President had approved its cx-
ercise. The very persons who denied the
power to prohibit slavery. asserted the pow
er to establish territorial governments and to
define their departments and powers, and
therefore, in denying the power of prohibi-
ton, were reduced to the necessity of deny
ing that the greater includes the less.
Under these circumstances, after the pro-
hibition had remained unquestioned for
more than the third of century, the denial
of its constitutionality rather provoked in
dignation than excited doubt.
1t was, also, insisted that the doctrine of
popular sovereignty required the repeal of
the prohibition. This was mere abuse of
terms. The true idea of popular sovereign
ty, demands as a primary essential eondi-
ton the recognition Of inalienable personal
rights. There can be no genuine popular
sovereignty where portion of the popula-
ton is enslaved. The prohibition of slavery
is therefore a necessary prerequisite to a
real sovereignty of the people. In the sense
of the apologists for repeal, popular sover-
eighty signifies nothing but a right of a
portion of the community TO enslave the
rest. 1t begins by the denial of the rights
of man. 1t must end in the total subver-
sion of the fundamental principles of Amer
lean institutions. For free and independ-
ent people, it would substitute a community |
of masters, dependents and slaves.
Such is the repulsive theory. In practi-
cal operation it has not proved more attract
i've. As embodied in the Nebraska-Kansas
bill, it has been fruitful of nothing but evil |
1t has not conferred single substantial ben
eft upon the settlers of either territory. In
no respect are they distinguished from the
settlers of Minnesota, where slavery is pro-
hibited, except by exposure to its evils
The sole special effect of the Nebraska-Kan-
sas act upon the territories organized under
it is to open them to the introduction of
slaves In one of them it has led to despe-
rate attempts to effect that objcct-to in
vasion, usurpation, violence, bloodshcd-al- |
most to civil war Crimes like these are
not the legitimate fruits of that doctrine of
popular selfgovernment, to the maintenance
of which our fathers pledged their lives, their
fortunes and their sacred honor.
In all these things our own State has a
deep and peculiar interest Our own histo-
ry furnishes the most complete vindication
of the policy Of slavery prohibition. We
occupy in part, the soil protected from the
blight of slavery, BY the ordinances of 1881.
For moro than half a century the people of
Ohio have been accustomed to regard the
ordinance with mingled emotions of graft
tude and pride. Conspicuous among its pro-
visions and fit companionship with its sacred
guarantees of religious freedom, of liberality
towards immigrants, of inviolability of pr-
vate contracts, of the security of private
property, and universal education, stands the
great interdict against slavery, acknowledge |
ing an impartiality protecting the rights of
man as man. The words to which We al
ways recur when seeking in the ordinance
the peculiar springs of our wonderful pros
perity and progress are those which en-
body this prohibition. Never did the no
bic pioneers who laid the foundations, on
which we now joyfully build, complain of
that interdict as an abridgement of any
rights, personal or political. On the con-
trary they have ever spoken of it as the pill |
lar of fire by night and of cloud by day which I
guided and protected them in the wilder
ness. More than any other State, Ohio, as
the first born Of the ordinance, and indebt-
ed TO the ordinance for her proud position
as the third State of the Confederacv, and |
first among the new States, IS bound to
cherish and defend its great and benefcent
principles. In 50 doing, we shall be fellow
workers with the illustrious trainers in their
own declared policy and purpose of "extend-
ing the fundamental principles of civil and
religious liberty whereon these republics,
their laws and constitutions are erected, and
fixing and establishing those principles as
the basis of all laws, constitutions and gov
ernments which forever hereafter shall be
formed in" American "territory."
No political duty appears to be more ur-
gent than this.
The question of slavery, it is almost uni
versally conceded, trancends in present i'm
portance all other political questions of ma
tional character. The repeal of the Missouri
prohibition, abrogating the Missouri Com
promise, opens anew the whole subject of
the relations of slavery, to the Union, to the
States, and to the territories. In determin-
ing the true line of duty, under these cir
cumstances it seems to be the part of wis |
dom 70 ra5,,r 70 tho ootS of fbo foupdarS Of