Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1860-03-08

course between the States and their citizens has
been lmmeasurably increased and consequent
y their mutual relations affecting slavery have
been, for many years, subjects Of earnest and
often excited discussion. 1t is in my way to
show how such disputes have operated on the
course of political events-not to reopen them
for argument here. There was slave insur.
rection in Virginia. Virginia and Kentucky
debated, and to the great sorrow of the free
States, rejected the system of voluntary labor
The Colonization Society was established with
much favor in the capital States. Emancipa-
ton societies arose in the free States. South
Carolina instituted proceedings to nulify obnox-
ious Federal revenue laws The capital States
complained of courts and legislatures in the la
Dor States for interpreting the constitutional
provision for the surrender of fugitives from ser
vice so as to treat them as persons, and not
as property, and they Disseminated against COL
ored persons of the labor States, when they
came to the capital States. They denied, in Con-
gress, the right of petition, and embarrassed or
denied the freedom of debate on the subject of
slavery. Presses which undertook the defense
of the labor system in the capital States, were
Suppressed by violence and even in the labor
States, public assemblies, convened to consider
slavery questions, were dispersed by mobs SYM
pathizing with the capital States.
The Wing party, being generally an opposi-
ton party, praetSed some forbearance toward
the interest of labor. The Democratic party,
not without the demonstrations of dissent, was
generally found sustaining the policy of capital.
A disposition towards the removal Of slavery
from the presence of the National Capitol ap.
peared in the District of Columbia. Mr.. Van
Duran, Democratic President, launched pro-
spectve veto against the anticipated measure.
A Democratic Congress brought Texas into the
Union, STIMULATING practically for its future re-
organization into four slave States. Mexico was
lnccnsed. War ensued 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 debate
of 1920 required now, under circumstances Of
heat and excitement in relation to these con-
quests. The defenders of labor took alarm lest
the number of new capital States might become
SO great as to enable that class Of States to die
tate the whole policy of the Government; and
in case of constitutional resistance, then to form
a new slaveholding confederacy around the Gulf
of Mexico. By this time the capital States
seemed to have become fixed in dete rmination
that the Federal Government, and even the la
Dor States, should recognize their slaves, though
outside of the slave States, and within the Ter
ritorles Of the United States, as property of
which the master could not be in any way or
by any authority Invested; and the labor States,
having become now more essentially Democratic
than ever before, by the great development of
free labor, more firmly than ever insisted on the
constitutional doctrine that slaves Voluntarily
carried by their masters into the common Ter
IL 49, l,1ou Gkoko
Under the suspicious influences Of Wing
success, California and New Mexico appeared
before Congress as labor States. The capital
States refused to consent to their admission into
the Union and again threats of dIsunon car
ried terror and CONSERVATION throughout the
land. Another compromise was made, Spe-
ci6c enactments admitted California as labor
State, and remanded New Mexico and Utah to
remain Territories, with the right to choose
freedom or slavery when ripened into States,
while they gave new remedies for the reception
of fugtives from service, and abolished the open
slave market in the district of Columbia. These
new enactments, collated with the existing stat
utes, namely, the ordinance of 1887, the Mis-
souri, prohibitory law of 1920, and the articles
of Texas annexation, disposed by law of the
subject of slavery in all the Territories of the
United States. And SO the compromise of 1850
was pronounced full, final, absolute and COM
prehensive settlement of all existing and all pos
sible disputes concerning slavery under the Fed
eral authority. The two great parties, fearful
for the Union, struck hands in making and in
presenting this as an adjustment, never after
wards to be opened, disturbed, or even ques-
toned and the people accepted it by majorities
unknown before. The new President, chosen
over an illustrious rival, unequivocally on the
ground of greater ability, even if not more re-
liable purpose, to maintain the new treaty in-
violate, made haste to justify this expectation
when Congress assembled, He said:
" When the grave shall have closed over all
who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations
of duty, the year 1850 will be REQUIRED to as q
period filled with anxiety and apprehension. A
successful war has just terminated peace brought
with it great augmentation of territory. Dis
turbing questions arose bearing upon the domes-
tic institutions Of portion Of the confederacy,
and involving the constitutional rights of the
States. But, notwithstanding differences of
opinion and sentiment, in relation to details and
specific provisions, the acquiescence Of distin-
guished citizens, whose deyouon to the Union
can never be doubted, has given renewed vigor
to our institut tons, and restores sense of SO.
curty and repose to the public mind through
out the confederacy. That this repose is to suf-
fer no shock during my official term, If have
the power TO avert it, those who placed me here
may be assured
Hardly, however, had these inspiring sounds
died away, throughout treasured and delight
cd land, before the national repose was shocked
again shocked indeed, as it had never before
been, and smitten this time by blow from the
very hand that had just released the cords of