The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-03-09

BIDDEF0RD, \
cry element of the controversy now present
entered it then; the rightiulness or the
wrongiulness of slavery; its effects, present
and future the constitutional authority of
Congress {; the claims of the States, and of
their citizens; the nature of the Federal I'm
ion, whether il is compact between the
States, or an independent government; the
springs of its powers, and the ligatures upon
their exercise. All these were discussed
with zeal and ability which have never been
surpassed. History tells us, know not how
truly, that the Union rceled under the yehe-
mcncc of that great debate. Patriotism took
counsel from prudence, and enforced set
Element which has proved to be not final
one; and which, US is now seen, practically
left open all the great political issues which
were involved. Missouri and Arkansas were
admitted as capital States, while labor OBJ
tained, as reservation. the abridged but yet
comprehensive field OF Kansas and Nebraska.
Now, when the present conditions of the
various parts of the Louisianian Territory
are observed, and we sec that capital retains
undisputed possession ofwhat 1t then obtain
cd, while labor is convulsing the country
with SO hard and so prolonged a struggle to
regain the lost equivalent which was then
guaranteed to it under circumstance of 30
great solemnity, we may we'll desire not to
beundcceived il the Missouri compromise. was
indeed unnecessarily accepted by the free
States, influenced by cxaggcrations Of the
dangers of disunion. The Missouri debate
disclosed truths Of great moment for ulterior
use:
WHAT TRUTHS TIE MISSOURI DEBArE DISCLOSED.
First, That it is easy to combine the cap
ital States in defense of even external inter-
ests, while it is hard to unite tho labor States
in common policy.
Second, That the labor States have a
natural loyalty to the Union, while the cap
ital States have natural facility for alarm
ing that loyalty by threatening disunion.
Third, That the capital States do not
practically distinguish between legitimate
and constitutional resistance to the extension
of slavery in the common Territories Of the
Union, and unconstitutional aggression
against slavery established by local laws in
the capital States.
THEN AND. NOW.
The carly political parties were organized
without reference to slavery. But since lS-
%. European questions have left US practi-
cally unconcerned. There has been great
increase of invention, mining, manufacture,
and cultivation. Steam on land and on
water has quickcncd commerce. Pho press
and the telegraph have attained prodigious
activity, and the social intercourse between
the States and their citizens has been I'M
measurably increased; and consequently,
their mutual relations affecting slavery have
been, for many years, subjects o. earnest and
often excited discussion. Ii is in my way
only to show how such disputes have operat-
cd on the course Of political eycnts-not to
reopen them for argument here. There was
q slave insurrcction in Virginia. Virginia
and Kentucky debated, and to the great sor-
row of the free States, rejected the system OF
voluntary labor. The Colonization Society
WAS established with much favor in the cap
ital States. Emancipation societies arose in
the free States. South Carolina instituted
proceedings to nulliy obnoxious Federal rev.
enue laws. The capital States complained
of courts and legislatures in the labor States
for interpreting the constitutional provision
for the surrender of fugitivcs from service 80
us to treat them us persons, and not proper
ty, and they Disseminated against colOred
persons Of the labor States, when they came
TO the capital States. They denied, in Con-
grcSs, the right of petition, and embarrassed
or denied the freedom OF debate on the sub
iect of slavery. Presses, which undertook
the defence of the labor system in the capital
States, were suppressed by violence. and even
in the labor States, public assemblies, con-
yencd to consider slavery questions, were dis
persed by mobs sympathizing with the capi-
tai States.
THE WIG AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIEs-wDAT
THEY DID AND now.
The Whg party, being generally an OF
position party, practiccd some forbearance
toward the interest of labor. The Demo-
cratic party, not without demonstrations Of
dissent, was generally found sustaining the
policy orcapital. A Adisposition towards the
removal of slavery from the presence of the
national Capitol appeared in the District OF
Columbia. Mr.. Van Buren,, q Democratic
President, launched n prospective vetoagainst
the anticipated measure. A Democratic Con-
gress brought Texas into the Union, stipulat-
ing practically for its future reorganization
in four slave States. Mexico was inccnscd.
War ensucd. The labor States asked that
the Mexican law of liberty, which covered
the Territories brought in by the treaty Of
peace, might remain and be confirmed. The
Democratic party refused. The Missouri de-
bate of 1920 REQUIRED now, under circum-
stances of heat and excitement, in relation to
these conquests. The defenders oflabor took
alarm lest the number of new capital States
might become sssercat as to enable that class
of States to dictate the whole policy of the
Government ; and in case of constitutional
resistance, then TO form new slaycholding
conlcderacy around the Gulf of Mexico. by
this time the capital States seemed to have
become fixed in u determination that the
Federal Government, and even the labor
States, should recognize their slaves, though
outside of the slave States, and within the
Territories of the U. S., rs property ofwhich
the master could not be in any way or by
any authority divested; and the labor States,
having become now more essentially Demo-
cratic than ever before, by the great develop
mcnt of free labor, more firmly than ever in-
sisted on the constitutional doctrine that
slaves voluntarily carried by their masters
into the common Territories or into labor
States, are persons, men.
Under tbeauspicious influence Of Wing
success, California and New Mexico appear
ed before Congress as labor States. Thecap-
i,al States refused to consent to their admis-
sion into the Union; and again threats of
disuniOn carried terror and CONSERVATION