Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-02-07
Gbe Anti 5lnperp Buolc.
WHO SHOULD RULE THE TERRITORIES
Speech Of the Hon. j. 4. Bingham, Of Ohio, in
The HOuse Of Represenkatires. January l3. 1851.
| Concluded IL

Conclpded]
Under these sanctions repeat nv propositiou
that Slavery m6y be excluded by this Government
from its Territories-that such restriction is con-
stitutional. and may be rightfuly asserted rs n
condition precedent upon the institution of new
States and their admission into the Union.
1t results from tbis legislation of Congress that
neither Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan Iowa
nor Wisconsin, may lawfully iegalize Slavery
thersin, without n violation of pghted faith. Of
the express terms of their several enabling and
organic acts and of the painest princues of the
Constitution. They have each so declared by their
fundamental law they each complied with the
statute restriction )" they each prohibited Slavery
AID that tie essential principles Of liberty might
be Considerably established" they each declared
by their Constitution that all men are born equally
free and independent, and have the natural anl
Inherent rights of enjoying and defending life
and liberty, and Of acquiring, possessing, and
defending property, and that these rights
ISALIENABlE. They understood the statute re-
striction of Congress binding and obligatory upon
them as States and hence their literal compliance
with its acouremeats. They understood the sub
lime conception of the great fathers of the Repub-
lie, that the Slavery prohibition was perpetual,
and unditerdblc; that the word FOREVER. as used
in the ordinance and Incorporated IN their several
organic and enabling acts me2nt not merely until
their State constitutions should lie formed, but 90
long as the States thus organized sh oud live Yes,
Sir liberty forerer, to all the inha6itants, was
declared by these congressional enactme2ts, ana
by the constitutions of these new States to be The
essential condition of their existence--their very
breath of life. And to-day, over all that vast
tract of country, covered by those six free States
comes the stirring kindlng proclamation "liberty
to all the inhabitants torerer"-ay, FOREVER. until
empires and nations perish. till the heavens be no
more, and the earth and sea give up their dead
would not willingly surrender power, which
has worked such benefcent resulta
There is but one mode of escape from the con
elusiOn that this statute restriction upon the in
stituton," of new States may and should be inn
posed by Congress. and chat is to repudiate alto
gether the sovereignty Of the General Goverumert
over the Territories-to deny that the Territories
are the property of the United States. and assert
on the Contrary, in the words of Mr.. Calhoun,
whom the President undertakes to follow, but
with "unequal step" that the Territories belong,
not to the United States but 10 the Screral SateS-
that IN the States sEvERALLY reside the dominion
and sovereignty over them" "(Calhouu's w orks.yol
4. p. 497) That was the only position by which
that great man could make plausible his object TO
the Slavery inhibition 10y Congress. lie held that
the Territories the property OF the
several States. held jointly for their cannon use.
and therefore he claimed that it was WnjHst and
unequal that "any portion Of the partners out
numbering another portion should Dust them of
this common property of theirs" pruscibe them
from EN- grating thither with their slave property.
He did not question the power of Congress tn
govern the Territories, the trustee of the States
Constitution Slavery could be prohibited therein
IL the States are tenants III common in the Terri
tories-it they be the partners in this property-
how portion Of these partners outuumher
another por ton and oust them surely not by
legislation for they do not legslate States over
the Territories. How then? BY entering the
Territory, aud oustng their copartners by force or
by acts of usurwLtiuu. That, Sir, has BEEN done
already not by the non slayeho ding partners, hut
by the slaveholding partners; and that is the IN
ed by the President, that the Territories are under
tho dominion aud sovereignty Of the States sever
ally. That is tho result Of this CONSTITUTIONS
equality of each and all of the States of the
Union as States" asserted by the President, tOl
the government OF Kansas, instead OF the SOW
ereignty of the nation. This attempt to secure
equality to the States such within the Territo
ries cannot be effected No legislation can secure
it. 1t Is possible in the nature OF things Inc
slaveh0lding States assert that men are property
the non -slavebolding States assert that men are
not property and cannot and shall not be made
property Georgia, by her Constitution, declares
that the Legislature shall have no power to pas
laws for the emancipation of slaves without thu
previous consent of each of their respective own
ers Ohio, by her Constitution, declares that tier
shall be no slavery, except in punishment OF crmt
upon due conviction. 1t the domestic institution
of the several States to obtain in the Territories
as the President asserts, how can they cocks
there when they thus conflict? You might wei
occupy the place at the same time, or lit
and death to coexst at the same moment in tn
same body.
Sir, this proposition of State equality in tn
Territories is mere absurdity, except upon tn
hypothesis that the Territories shall be partioned
Partition would he a compromise; and when tn
South assumed this position her great leader MI
Calhoun) told u.s. Let he done with cumpr,
misses let us go back and stand upon the Const
tuition" (Calhoun's Works, vol a. p 347).
Tha hat
no comprehensive stand upon th
Constitution. Then, Sir, there is to b
no partition Of these Territor.es-no apportinr
meut of one part as slave territory, and ann'he
part as free territory. This being 70, say AGAR
the equal dominion OF the States, las States,
within tho Territories is impossible. The priv
iisse to hold slaves in the Territories for a sho'
time until territorial statute or Constitution OK
cludipp it shall have been adopted Will not secur
to the States equality in the sense used by th
President 1t would not meet the demands OF tn
South to permit them 20 60 into the TeTrltor'e
with their slaves tomorrow, to be driven back an
ousted by superior numbers the next month ur I'll
next year To make good this demand l say Z
gentlemen, you must-yOu Will take lhotner stel
and that is TO assert your right to hold slave
within the Territories after well as bcfore, the
erection into States. This necessarily results,
within the Territories the equality of each OF Il
States as States is to be maintained.
Why Sir, we were told but day or two ago
tne gentleman from South Carolina (Mr' URN
that territorial etatutes absolutely necessal
to protect slave property within the Terrtorie
Euactments TO that end have already been ma
in Kansas by usurpers. Repeal these enactm ent
as I trust you will repeal them and what sancto
or protection then have you for slaves in Kansas
None Sir, none You have n crimes act for t
punishment of murder, manning. robbery larcen
&C., when committed in any place under the e
elusive jurisdiction of the United States, &c. Til
act, with it's penalties by its terms as W.
as by your organic law is in full force in Kansa
but IL furnishes no protection TO Slavery or sla
property there. If any person should steal a sla
within that Territory beld By another as his pro