Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-04-29

est, lowest living soul. You cannot establish
slavery on Federal soil, and, by act of Congress,
that was never done. The whole history OF the
Federal Government, from 1889 to 1850 Of
prohibition prohibition by almost every Con
gress; prohibition with the assent Of every
President prohibition with the approval OF
statesmen of every school, and jurists in every
court ; and prohibition with the acquiescence
of the people and the States So much for the
past.
The new ideas, so radically different as to de-
serve the epithet revolutionary" have been of
rapid growth. They sprang not from the Con-
stitution; for they were never dreamed of by
those who made it, and never known to those
who, for the first half century, administered it,
The late distinguished Senator from South Caro-
lima, Mr.. Calhoun, was their father and the
errand on which they were sent were rather
sectional and political, than peaceful and pat
riotic. So long as there was slavehodng ter
ritory to make slayeholdng States, these new
ideas were never known. Until the acquisition
OF vast domain from Mexico, in ,rhich slarery
did not crist, they were never known. With
that emergency came the necessity-purely
political one-for a new scheme of constitu-
tonal law, which would admit slavery into free
territory in spite Of congressional intervention,
without any act Of Congress, and against any.
Mr.. Calhoun devised the scheme and on the
18th of February, 1877, he submitted it to the
Senate ina series of resolutions, which were
consigned to sleep upon the table, without the
formality OF vote. As the very origin of the
late decision of the Supreme Court, almost in
the words OF the court and Of the President. i
recall them here. They were as follows:
ResolUed That the Territories of the United States
belong to the several States composing this Unon and
are held by them their joint and common property.
Resolced That Congress, as the joint agent and
representative of the State Of this Union, has right
make any law rdo any act whatever that shall directly
or by its effects, make any discrimination between the
states of this Union, by which any of them shall be
deprived of its full and equal rights in any Territory of
the United States, acquired or to be acquired.
Resoired, That the enactment of any law which
should directly or by its effects, deprive the citizens of
any of the States of this Union from emgratng with their
property, into any Of the Territories of the United States,
would make such discrimination, and would therefore,
be violation of the Constitution and the rights of the
States from which such citizens emgrated and in deroga-
ton OF that perfect equality which belongs to them
members of this Union and would tend directly sub
e vert the Union itseif.'
Here was distinct proposition to obtain q
, legislative declaration of the right to take
slaves, as property into all the Territories and
legislative denial of any right in Congress to
forbid But it failed. MIR. Benton Denounced
~ W." ''i|pA"ht; uilh IL IuilCu
In the next year, 1913, an attempt was made
To effect the same purpose bya judicial declma-
ton from the Supreme Court. 10 effect this, a
clause was inserted in one of the bills for the
government of Territories, allowing slaves to
enter court by way of petition for liberty, with
the right OF appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States that bill passed the Senate by
: the combined votes of Senator of entirely differ
: ent oplnions--some believing that the court
would be for freedom, and others for slavery
put the House, on the first appearance Of the
: blll, promptly nailed it to the Speakers table
In March, 1887, when Mr.. Calhoun 'sscheme was
precisely ten years and one month old, the court
: adopted it as its own, and President Buchanan
pledged himself" cheerfully to submit" The
court adopted as law what Congress had ever
denied from 1889 to 1854 what Mr. Calhoun
and MIR. Buchanan both denied, by excluding
slavery north Of Sc deg. 80 deg, in the Texas
resolutions of lS45; what Congress refused to
declare as law in l847, what Mr. Calhoun him
self denied in 1913, by his vote to extend the
f Missouri compromise to the Pacific ocean; what
the southern Democrat Senators denied at
the same time, by the same vote what Con-
gress denied in the territorial bills of 1850 and
+ what Congress also denied, by retaining the
Missouri Compromise, downto the 30th of MAY.
1851
r In view of these facts, so utterly irrcconca-
t bic with any settled conviction that Congress
r had not constitutional power to prohibit slave
l. ry, | hesitate not to say, that the purpose
= which Mr.. Calhoun conceived, and which the
: President and the judiciary have attempted to
f execute, was purely political, founded upon no
e express provision of the Constitution, and no
g previous Interpretation of it; founded upon
nothing but determination to extend slavery,
'o'thom the consent of Congress Or the people
and excused by nothing but those shallow, sec
tional, and therefore mischievous. notions of an
g equilibrium of free and slave States ~ in num-
Der, and equality Of rights which have not
shadow of support, either in the Constitution
or the history Of the Union.t The politicians
OF the pro-slavery school-the President and
court-are one it is for the future to show
< whether Congress and the people shall with
} stand or submit. The Congress of 1854 was
Q party in the scheme; the Congress of 1858 mag
be party in the scheme. The country looks to
the next.
f Let us look for Il moment at the legislative
+ and judicial politicians of 1854, tremendously
| blending to give us a new Constitution without
the process of formal amendment, or SO much
as saying to the States and the people, by your
D leave" In the month of April, 1854 the
bred Scott case was argued in the United
: States circuit court for Missouri and in that
same April, 1854, the Kansas Nebraska bill
was argued in Congress. In May 1854, the
court decided the case for slavery and in that
same month of May, and on the 30th day there
of, Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
What was it ? Every way most renal kable
f act-remarkablc for its fullness of failures :;
most remarkable for the fate of its prophet
t He is not entirely without honor, save in his
. own party, HIS party has read him out but
: with tolerable assurance that he will read his
1 party out-out Of the favor of the people, out
, Of the next Congress, and out of the next Pres
idency. A fitting climax to the unexpected ac-
t cdents of the Nebraska bill. 1t promised
s quiet and, has given us agitation peace,
s and VIC have had the sword non-interfcrence,
G and we had interference fairness and we have
o had fraud law and order, and we have dis
! order and defiance to all law freedom and we
n have slavery the rights of the sovereign pao-
# pie, and the people have been d2fraudcd of
r their first, their dearest and most sacrot rights
: Why should it not defeat its party But in
o one point, and the chief one, the Kansas Ne
d braska bill has not failed. 1t repealed the Mis-
If soDri compromise, and swept our wide domain
) north of So deg. so deg. Of the statute against
C slavery. Thus it prepared the way for the
+ South to bring in its lcgions of Slaves; and the
\ court has decided that they can 90 in g under
n the Constitution Of the United States" The
!. design of the politicians has been confirmed by
Z, the court, and now it stands out in charac-
: ters far too bold to be blinkcd. Slavery the
}, supreme law in Federal territory Slavery the
: general rule Freedom the exception 'Tha,
u is the revolution. Let us see how it was to be
G achieved,
: Twill consider the edct of the court as il
u comes to MS, officially declared and illustrated
0 by the President of the United States. Let u,
d consult his official announcement to the coun
: try, in the. first blush of gratitude to a con-