The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-08-04
From the Ohio Stale journal.
From the Ohio State Journal.
OHIO DEMOCRACY AND THE FUGI
TIVE SLAVE LAW.

When the fugitive slave act was pending in
Congress, and Immediately after its passage, the
Democratic press of Ohio was almost unani-
nous in its condemnation. Several of the
journals, whose subserviency is now most con-
spicuous, were then earnest defenders of "the
true and living faith"
The Cincinnati Enquirer, on the Both of Oc-
tober, 1850, referring to the constitutional com
pact relating to fugitives from service, said ::
" Our own opinion is, that the Government of
the United States has nothing to do with en-
forcing that agreement. 1t is matter left en-
tirely with the States. X We do not
think that the General Government has any
right to send its officers into the States to car
ry out what good faith requires the States alone
to do"
The Enquirer further contends, that " this is
the Democratic, not the Federal, reading of the
Constitution"
The Sandusky City Democratic Mirror, com
menting on the article of the Enquirer, OBJ
served: We agree with the Enquirer, that
this is the Democratic and not the Federal
reading of the Constitution. What follows,
then? That the fugitive act is an usurpation,
unconstitutional, void, for the want of power in
Congress to pass it-a nullity under the tenth
amendment, which reserves the undelegated
powers to the States and the people,"
The Ohio Statesman, taking apparently the
same view of the act, in answer to an interroga-
tory of the Journal, and in reference to a deela-
ration by its editor that "he could not have
voted for it without essential modification" de-
clared, emphatically, " we wonld not hare uoted
for the lGC, lcih or WittOm essential n,odifca-
tom
The Cleveland Plaindealey characterized the
act as one of internal origin" Whether
constitutional not" it said it is so manifest
ly in conflict with the spirit of the age that it
cannot stand"
The Youngstown (Ohio) Republican said :
" The Democratic press of the State are op-
posed to the law. Some of our
brethren regard it as unconstitutional, while
others consider it clearly constitutional, but I'M
just in its provisions, oppressive in its charac-
ter impolitic, and unworthy of this progressive
age; and all manifest willingness for its re.
peal"
The Holmes County Farmer described the
law as an outrage upon the Declaration of
Independence, contrary to the Constitution of
the United States repugnant to the common
sympathies of mankind, and entirely unneces-
sary and uncalled for"
The Sandusky County Democrat declared
"opr Representatives sold themselves and be-
trayed US, and that willfully, when they enacted
~ "hN PAOhOuhCCO ~ law dDuOTT6nI 10
God, nature, and humanity, which cannot and
will not stand"
The New Lisbon (Ohio) Patriot, then edited
by William d. Morgan, characterized it as =" a
bill OF abominations," observing that "the
monstrosity of its provisions does not consist so
much in those portions which simply comply
with the constitutional requirements of the act
of Congress, as in the detail which gives every
advantage on the side of bondage; ~ and sig
nifcantly adding, that "if it be wrong for the
slave to struggle for his freedom, the American
people, in tie infancy of their existence, set an
example which the fugitive finds easy to hold up
in extenuation of his crime
The Defiance Democrat proclaimed that " hu-
mainly, social order, and the better feelings of
our nature, demanded The repeal of this blood
| thirsty law
That will do for the present. The above are
only few samples of the way the Democratic
papers talked ten years ago. AS Father Richie
was accustomed to say in the pslmy days of the
Washington Union, nous reTToys.