Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-03-02

or only LABOR states III tie northwest. They
directed fugitives from service to be restored,
not as chattels but as persons. They awarded
naturalization to immigrant free laborers, and
they prohibited the trade in African labor
This disposition of the whole subject was in
harmony with the condition of society, and
in the main, with the spirit of the age. The
seven northern states contentedly became la
Dor states by their own acts. The six southern
states, with equal tranquility and by their own
determination, remained capital states.
The circumstances which the fathers did
not clearly foresee, were two, namely the re-
inauguration of slavery consequent on the in
creased consumption of cotton, and the extern
sion of the national domain across the Missis-
sippi, and these occurred before 1920. The
state of Louisiana, formed on slaveholding
French settlement, within the newly acquired
l. usianian territory, had then already been
admitted into the Union, There yet remained
however, vast region which included Arkan-
sas and Missouri, together with the then unoc-
cupied and even unnamed Kansas and Nebras-
ka. Arkansas, a slaveholding community
was nearly ready to apply, and Missouri
another such territory, was actually applying
for admission into the federal Union. The
existing capital states seconded these appica-
tionS, and claimed that the whole LouiSianian
territory was rightfuly open to slavery, and
to the organization of future slave states. The
labor states maintained that Congress had su.
preme legislative power within the domain,
and could and ought to exclude slavery there.
The question thus opened was one which re-
lated not at all to slavery in the existing capital
states. 1t was purely and simply national
question whether the common interest of the
whole republic required that Arkansas, Mis-
souri,, Kansas, and Nebraska, should become
capital states, with all the evils and dangers
OF slavery or be labor states with all the secu-
rity, benefits, and blessings Of freedom. On
the decision was suspended the question, as
was thought, whether ultimately the interior
OF this new continent should be an asylum for
the oppressed and the exile, coming year after
year and age after age, voluntarily from every
other civilized land, as well as for the children
OF misfortune in our own, or whether, through
the renewal of the African slave trade, those
magnificent and luXuriant regions should be
surrendered to the control OF capital, wringing
out the fruit of the earth through the impov-
erishing toll of negro slaves. That question
of 1920 was iGentcally the que ton of 1860
so far as principle, and even the field of its
application, was concerned. Every element
OF the controversy now present entered it
then; the rightfulnesS or the wrongfuness 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 Union, whether it is a
compact between the states, or an independent
government; the springs Of its powers, and
the Hgatures 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
reeied under the vehemence of that great de-
bate. Patriotism took bounSel from prudence,
and enforced settlement which has proved
to be not final one and which, as is now seen,
nr1p lU off NIL ha
sues which were involved. Missouri and Ar
kansas were admitted as capital states, Willie
labor obtained, as a reservation, the abridged
but yet comprehensive field Of Kansas and
Nebraska.
Now, when the present conditions of various
parts of the Louisianan Territory are observ
ed, and we see that capital retains undisputed
possession of what it then obtained, while
labor is convulsing the country with so hard
and so prolonged struggle 10 regain the lost
equivalent which was then guaranteed to it UNI
der circumstances of 50 great solemnity, we
may well desire not to be undeceived if the
Missouri compromise was indeed unnecessarily
accepted by the free states, influenced by ex-
aggerations OF the dangers of dsunion. The
Missouri debate disclosed truths of great mo-
ment for Interior use -
First, That it is easy to combine the capital
states in defence of even external interests,
While it is hard to unite the labor states in a
common policy.
Second, That the labor states have ma
tural loyalty to the Union, while the capital
states have a natural facility for alarming that
loyalty by threatening diSunion.
Third That the capital states do not prac-
tically distinguish between Legitimate and con-
sltutonal resistance to the extension of slav-
cry in the common territories of the Union,
and unconstitutional aggression against slavery
established by local laws in the capital states.
The early political parties were organized
without reference to slavery. But since 1920,
European questions have left us practically
unconcerned. There has been great increase
of invention, mining, manufacture, and cult
walton. Steam on land and on water has
quickened commerce. The press and the tele-
graph have attained prodigous activity and
the social intercourse between the states and
their citizens has been immeaSurably increas-
ed; and consequently, their mutual relations
affecting slavery have been, for may years,
subjects of earnest and often excited discus
sion. 1t is in my way only to show how such
disputes have operated on the course of politi-
cal events-not to reopen them Tor argument
here. There was slave insurrection in Vir-
ginia, Virginia and Kentucky debated, and to
the great sorrow of the free states, rejected
the system of voluntary labor. The Coloniz-
alton Society was established with much favor
in the capital states. Emancipation societies
arose in the free states. South Carolina lnsti-
tuted proceedings to nuillfy obnoxious federal
revenue laws. The capital states complained
of courts and legislatures in the labor states
for interpreting the constitutional provision for
the surrender of fugitives from service so as
to treat them as persons and not property,
and they Disseminated against colored per-
sons of the labor states, when they came
to the capital states. They denied, in Con-
gress, the right OF petition, and embarrass.
ed or denied the freedom Of debate on the sub
ject 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 convened
to consider slavery questions, were dispersed
by mobs sympathizing with the capital states.
The wing party, being generally an opposl-
ton party, practiced some torbearance toward
the interests of labor. The democratic party,
not without demonstrations of dissent, was
generally found sustaining the policy of capt.
ial A disposition towards the removal Of
slavery from the presence of tine national Cap
tol appeared in the District of Columbia. Mr.
Van Buren,, a democratic President launched
prospective veto against the anticipated
measure. A democratic Congress brought
Texas into the Union, STIMULATING practically
for its future reorganization in four slave
states. Mexico was incensed. 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 aud
be confirmed. The democratic party refused.
The Missouri debate of 1920 REQUIRED now,
under circumstances of heat and excitement,
in relation to these conquests. The defenders
of labor took alarm lest the number of new
capital states might become so great as TO en-