The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-11

stimulated voluntary immigration from Europe.
Thirdly, they established an easy, simple, and
uniform process of NATURALIZATION Inc change
of the balance of power from the slave States
10 the free States, which we are now witness
ing. is due chiefly to those four early measures
of national Intervention in favor of free labor.
II would have taken place much sooner, if the
, borders of the Republic had remained I'M
changed The purchase of Louisiana and the
/ acquisition of Florida, however, were transac-
tions resulting from high political necessities, in
disregard of the question between free labor and
slave labor. In admitting the new State OF
Louisiana, which was organized on the slave
labor settlement Of New Orleans, Congress prac-
ticed the same neutrality which it had before
exercised in the States of Kentucky and Tonnes
/ see. No serious dispute arose until 1919 when
Missouri, organized within the former province OF
Louisiana, upon a slave-labor settlement in St.
Louis, applied for admission as slave State, and
| Arkansas was manifesty preparing to appear
| soon in the same character. The balance OF
power between the slave States and the free
| States already reduced to an equilibrium,
and the eleven free States had an equal repre-
sentatisn with the eleven slave States in the
Senate of the United States. The slave States
unanimously insisted on an unqualified admis-
sion of Missouri. The free States, with less
unanimity, demanded that the new State should
renounce Slavery. The controversy seemed to
| shake the Union to its foundations, and it was
terminated by compromise. Missouri was adj
mitted as slave State Arkansas, rather by
| implication than by express agreement, was to
! be admitted and it was afterwards admitted as
a slave State. On the other hand, Slavery was
forever prohibited in all that part of the old
province of Louisiana yet remaining unoccu-
! pied, which lay north of the parallel of $50 30/
/ north latitude. The reservation for free labor
/ included the immense region now known as
| the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and
seemed ample for eight, ten, or more free States.
| The severity of the struggle and the conditions
of the compromise indicated very plainly, how
ever, that the vigor of national Intervention in
favor Of free labor and free States exhausted.
Still, the existing statutes were adequate to Sc
cure an ultimate ascendency of the free States.
The policy ofintervention in favor of slave labor
and slave States began with the further removal
of the borders of the Republic | cheerfully
admit that this policy has not been persistent or
exclusive, and claim only that it has been and
yet is predominant | am not now to deplore
! the annexation of Texas. | remark simply that
it was q bold measure, of doubtful constitution
atty, distinctly adopted as act of Intervention
in favor of slave labor, and made or intended to
be made most effective by the stipulation that
the new State of Texas may hereafter be divided
and so reorganized as to constitute five slave
States. This great act cast a long shadow before
| ia shadow which perplexed the people of the
| free States. 1t was then that feeble social
movement, which aimed by moral persuasion at
the msnumission of slaves, gave place to political
organizations, which have ever since gone on in
creasing in magnitude and energy directed against
afurther extension of Savery in the United States.
The war between the United States and Mexico,
and the acquisition of the Mexican provinces of
New Mexico and Upper California, the fruits of
that war, were so Immediately and directly con-
sequences of the annexation Of Texas, that all
of those transactions in fact may be regarded as
constituting one act of intervention in favor of
slave labor and slave States The field of the strife
between the two systems had become widely
enlarged. Indeed, it was now continental. The
amazing mineral wealth of California stimulated
settlement there into rapidity like that of vege-
| tation. The Mexican laws which prevailed in
the newly acquired Territories dedicated them to
| free labor, and thus the astounding question
arose for the first time, whether the United States
| of America, whose Constitution was based on the
| principle of the political equality of all men
| would blight and curse with Slavery a conquered
| land which enjoyed universal Freedom The slave
States denied the obligation of these laws and in
sisted on their abrogation. The free States main
tanned them, and demanded their confirmation
through the enactment of the Wilmot Proviso
The slave States and the free States were vet in
equilibrium. The controversy continued here
two years The settlers of the new Territories
became impatient, and precipitated a solution of
! the question. They organized new free States
in California and New Mexico. The Mormons
also framed a Government in Utah Congress,
after bewildering excitement, determined the
matter by another compromise 1t admitted
California a free State, dismembered New Mexico
| transferring large district free from Slavery to
Texas, whose laws carried Slavery over it. and
| subjected the residue to Territorial Govern
| ment, as it also subjected Utah, and stipulated
| that the future States to be organized in those
| Territories should be admitted either as free
States or as slave States, as they should elect
| pass over the portions of this arrangement which
| did not bear directly on the point in conflict
| The Federal Government presented this compro-
mise to the people, as a comprehensive, final and
perpetual adjustment Of all then existing and all
| future questions having any relation 10 the SUBJ
| ject of Slavery within the Territories or else
| where. The country accepted it with that pro-
verbal facility which free States practice when
| time brings on a stern conflict which popular
passions provoke, and at distance defy. This
halcyon peace, however had not ceased to be cell
| ebrated, when newborn necessities of trade
| travel, and labor, required an opening of the
| region in the old province of Louisiana north of
$50 30, which had been reserved in 1920 and
dedicated to free labor and free States The old
question was revived in regard to that Territory
ton, just as the stream which Lake Superior
discharges, contracting itself into rivers and
preciptating itself down rapids and cataracts
and now spreading out its waters into broad
seas, assumes new name with every change of
form, but continues nevertheless the same ma
jestic and irresistible food under every change.
increasing in depth and in volume until it loses
itself in the al-absorbing ocean.
No one had ever said or even thought that the
law OF Freedom in this region could be repealed
| impaired, or evaded. Its constitutionality had
indeed been questioned at the time of its enact
ment; but this, with all other objections, had
| been surrendered as part of the COMPROMISE It
was regarded as bearing the sanction of the pub
| lie faith, as 1t certainly had those of time and
| acqulescence. But the slaveholding people of
Missouri looked across the border, into Kansas.
and coveted the land. The slave States could
| not fail to sympathize with them 1t seemed as
if no organization of Government could he effect
| ed in the Territory. The Senator from Illinois
Mr. DoUGLAs] projected scheme Under his
| vigorous leading Congress created two Terrific
ries-Nebraska and Kansas. The former 1.-THE
more northern one) might, it was supposed be
| settled without Slavery, and become free State
or several free States The latter (the southern
one) was accessible to the slave States, bordered
| on one of them, and was regarded as containing
a region inviting to shareholders. So it might be
settled by them, and become one or more slave
States. Thus indirectly a further compromise
might be effected, if the Missouri prohibition of
1920 should be abrogated. Congress abrogated it,
with the special and effective cooperation of the
President, and thus the National Government
| directly interviewed in favor of slave labor Loud
remonstrances against the measure on the ground
of its violation of the national faith were slenced
| by clamorOus avowals of discovery that Con-
gress had never had any right to intervene in the
| Territories for or against Slavery, but that the