The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-20

to be free, must have the color of law for its
support. No outrage, committed by Power
upon Popular Rights, is left without some at
tempt at vindication. The partition of Poland,
the overthrow of the Constitution of Hungary,
the destruction of Irish Independence, like the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the con-
quest of Kansas, were consummated with a
scrupulous observance of the forms of law.
The Plea that the Missouri Compromise was not
Compact.
l. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
it is urged on behalf of those by whom it was
effected, involved no violation of good faith, be-
cause that Compromise was merely an act OF
Congress, aud as such repealable at pleasure.
Regarded as legal technicality, we are not
disposed to contest this plea. The Compromise
was undoubtedly embodied in a Congressional
enactment, subject to repeal. But in this case,
by the very nature of the transaction, the faith
of the parties was pledged that this enactment
should not be repealed The spirit of the law,
whatever its form, was the spirit of a compact.
It's enactment was secured by an exchange OF
equivalents. The slaveholding interest procured
the admission of Missouri into the Union, by
consenting and voting, through its Represents
tves in Congress- that north of its southern line,
in the Territory of Louisiana, Slavery should be
prohibited forever. Without that consent and
that vote, the admission of Missouri could not
have been secured nor would the prohibition
of Slavery until 1854, or until any other date,
or for any other time than that specified in the
act-namely, .toreoer-have purchased the as.
sent of the free States to the admission of Mis-,
souri, as a slave State into the Union. The
word forerer, therefore, was part of the law,
and of the consideration for its enactment.
Such law may be repealed but its repeal is
the rupture of compact-the Reputation Of
solemn covenant. The Missouri Compro
mise has been regarded as such compact, from
the date of its enactment, in all sections and
by all the people of the country. Successive
Presidents have invoked for it respect and al
obligation scarcely inferior to that of the Con.
stitution itself; and Senator Douglas himself, as
late as l845, declared that it had been "canop.
lied in the hearts of the American people, as q
sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would
ever be reckless enough to disturb" What.
ever, therefore, the mere form of the bond ma,
have permitted, good faith on the part of ths.
representatives of the slaveholding interest re-
quired that it should be kept inviolate.
Ii. Nor is this charge Of bad faith, brought
against the slaveholding interest, for having re-
pealed the Missouri Compromise, answered or
evaded by the pleas argued in its defence, that
originally it was forcibly imposed by the free
States upon the slave States, without their cor
sent; that it was subsequently violated by The
free States in their refusal to extend its prov;-
sions over New Mexico and Utah; or that It's
repeal, having been offered by the free State
themselves, could not be resisted or refused by
the representatives of Slavery. (l.) Even if It
of go 30/ was originally enacted by the free
OF ha of no tha In ~
that the admission of Missouri was accepted As
the price of that prohibition would have made
the slaveholding interest party to the transac-
ton, asserting to its terms, and bound by lis
obligations. But the fact is not SO. The act Of
March 6, 1920, which admitted Missouri, and
prohibited Slavery in the Louisiana Territory
north of $50 30>, received in the Senate the
votes of fourteen members from slaveholding
States, while only eight were cast against il /;
and in the House of Representatives, hirty-cis II
members from the slave States voted for it,
and thirty seuen against it. A majority of yhe
votes from slaveholding States in each branch
of Congress, were thus given for the bill and
so far were the representatives of Slavery from
regarding it as having been forced upon them,
that Charles Pinckney, one Of their greatest
and ablest leaders, declared, on the night of its
passage, that at acas regarded in the slase-
absurd is it to say that the refusal of the Moth
to extend the provisions of the Compromise
over other regions, was violation of its terms,
or in any way released the parties to it frem
their obligation to abide by its requirements.
(3.) 1t is true that the ostensible author of the
proposition to repeal it was a Senator frotr a
free State; but that fact does not authorize ,Sde
inference that the sentiment of the free Stsies
was Justly and truly represented by his act IN.
There was, indeed, no room to doubt this it
was condemned by the unanimous voice of be
free States, and that it would be regarded by
them, and by the country at large as ysry
gross and wanton violation of obligations VII ch
had been voluntarily assumed. No matter aia
what geographical quarter of the Union it ca ne,
it was brought forward in the interest an6 on
behalf of the Shareholders. This, indeed is
among the worst of the effects of Slavery, and
among the most signal proofs of its ascendeiicy,
that able and ambitious men should enlisi in
its service, and volunteer to perform offices on
its behalf which its representatives would scarn
to perform Reconsideration the conviction
that by that path the honors and dignities of
the General Government are to be secured.
The slaveholding interest owed it to honor &nd
good faith to resist the temptations which sEch
men might hold out for the reputation of its
obligations.
The Plea that Congress has no Power to Prohibit
Slavery in the Territories
III. But it is urged that the original ephct-
ment Of the Missouri Compromise, by WHICH
Slavery was prohibited from entering porEon
of the territory of the United States, was sio-
lation of the Constitution; that Congress fas
no rightful power to make such prohibit in t;
but that into any territory over which the on
stitution is extended, the STAKEHOLDER has RI ,ht
by virtue of its provisions, to take his slaves
In reply to this, We answer;
Ftrst-That, whether the plea be truk or
false, it comes too late that the savehol ing
interest conceded the constitutionalty offthe
prohibition, by asserting to its enactment, and
aiding it by the votes of its representatives
Second-That, if the plea were true, the
enactment was null and void, by reason o. its
unconstitutionality, and its repeal, therefore,
was needless ostentation of bad faith and
Third-That the plea is not true, but is d.
rectly contrary to the plain letter as well "a to
the spirit of the Constitution, and to the uniform
practice of the Government fyom its foundation.
The Constitution declares that " the Congress
shall have power to make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the Territories or other
property belonging to the United States" This
language is very plain and very broad. 1t i'm
poses no limitation upon the power of Congress
to make rules and regulations respecting the
Territories, except that they shall be such as
are /" needful;" and this, Of course, it lies in
the discretion of Congress- TO determine. 1t
assumes that power to legislate for the Terri
tories, which are the common property of the
Union, must exist somewhere and also that it
may most justly, and most safely, be PLACED in
the common Government of the Union. The
authority of Congress over the Territories is
therefore without any other limit than such as